With the government shutdown having ground airline travel to a standstill – and Thanksgiving right around the corner, Senate Democrats on Sunday say they’re ready to advance a package of bills that could end the impasse, multiple sources have told Axios. 

“At least 10 Senate Democrats are expected to support a procedural motion to advance a package of spending bills and a short term funding measure,” according to the report. 

What’s notable about this offer is that Democrats appear willing to accept a promised vote to extend the temporary pandemic-era Obamacare credits in December. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), meanwhile, said on Sunday that if Democrats cross the aisle to get this done, he will offer another stopgap spending measure with a later expiration date combined with three full-year appropriations bills (aka a ‘minibus‘). 

If passed, this should hopefully unsnarl air travel in time for Thanksgiving…

Double stacking the planes now. We’re taking off but later flights going to be hurting worse.

Once airports close this thing ends.

We don’t all fly private like many in Congress. pic.twitter.com/tI6asF8lCB

— Brian Sullivan (@SullyCNBC) November 9, 2025

While Bitcoin traders appeared to welcome the news:

Are we there yet?

almost at the … stage https://t.co/tyYIZvIBn3

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 9, 2025

We documented Saturday that the night prior witnessed one of Russia’s biggest ever assaults on Ukraine’s power and heating grid, including fresh strikes on thermal power plants, resulting in all state thermal facilities going down – plunging huge swathes of Ukrainian regions into darkness, including large areas of the capital.

But on Sunday Ukraine hit back, trying to beat Russia at its own game ahead of a frigid coming winter. Fresh Ukrainian cross-border aerial attacks have left two major Russian cities near the border without power and heating.

“A drone strike temporarily caused blackouts and cut heating to parts of Voronezh, regional Gov. Alexander Gusev said,” the Associated Press reports.

“He said several drones were electronically jammed during the night over the city, home to just over 1 million people, sparking a fire at a local utility facility that was quickly extinguished,” AP continues.

However, Telegram channels which monitor the war said the strike targeted a local thermal power plant. But the assault included missiles fired across the border as well. Per the report:

A missile strike late on Saturday also caused “serious damage” to power and heating systems supplying the city of Belgorod, with some 20,000 households affected, local Gov. Vyacheslav Gladkov reported the following morning.

Gov. Gladkov confirmed that the “electricity and heating supply network has suffered severe damage” in the regional capital in the statement.

And blackouts were also reported in the city of Taganrog – home to about 240,000 people – in the Rostov region. Overnight Russia’s defense ministry reported the military was able to intercept 44 inbound drones.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s foreign ministry is warning of the risks to the country’s nuclear power plants due to Russia’s ramped up attacks of late.

“Russia once again targeted substations that power the Khmelnytskyi and Rivne nuclear power plants,” Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said on X late Saturday. “These were not accidental but well-planned strikes. Russia is deliberately endangering nuclear safety in Europe.”

Gladkov Reports ‘Serious Damage’ to Power Supply System in Belgorod Region

Yesterday, as a result of Ukrainian Armed Forces strikes, over 20,000 residents of the region were left without power. According to local Telegram channels, the Luch thermal power plant in the regional… pic.twitter.com/Cky07T62B1

— Sota News (@sotanews) November 9, 2025

He’s calling for an international response to the crisis, and has called an meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors. The safety of nuclear power plants has remained a huge concern from nearly the start of the war.

Authored by Vijay Prashad via Consortium News

Since early September, the United States has given every indication that it could be preparing for a military assault on Venezuela. In February 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez travelled to Havana to receive the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) José Martí Prize from Fidel Castro.

In his speech, he likened Washington’s threats against Venezuela to dogs barking, saying, “Let the dogs bark, because it is a sign that we are on the move.” Chávez added,

“Let the dogs of the empire bark. That is their role: to bark. Our role is to fight to achieve in this century – now, at last – the true liberation of our people.”

Almost two decades later, the empire’s dogs continue to bark. But will they bite? That is the question that this red alert seeks to answer.

The Sound of Barking

In February 2025, the U.S. State Department designated a criminal network called Tren de Aragua (Aragua Train) as a ‘foreign terrorist organization.’ Then, in July, the U.S. Treasury Department added the so-called Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) to the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list as a ‘transnational terrorist group.’

No previous U.S. government report, either from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or the State Department, had identified these organizations as a threat, and no publicly verifiable evidence has been offered to substantiate the claimed scale or coordination of either group.

There is no evidence that Tren de Aragua is a coherent international operation. As for the Cartel de los Soles, the first time the name appeared was in 1993 in Venezuelan reporting on investigations of two National Guard generals – a reference to the ‘sun’ insignia on their uniforms – years before Hugo Chávez’s 1998 presidential victory.

The Trump administration has alleged that these groups, working with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, are the primary traffickers of drugs into the U.S. – while providing zero evidence for the connection. Moreover, reports from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the DEA itself have consistently found Venezuelan groups to be marginal in global drug trafficking. Even so, the U.S. State Department has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest – the largest in the programme’s history.

The U.S. has revived the blunt instrument of the ‘War on Drugs’ to pressure countries that are not yielding to its threats or that stubbornly refuse to elect right-wing governments.

Recently, Trump has targeted Mexico and Colombia and has invoked their difficulties with the narcotics trade to attack their presidents. Though Venezuela does not have a significant domestic drug problem, that has not stopped Trump from attacking Maduro’s government with much more venom.

A Nobel Prize

In October 2025, the Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado of the Vente Venezuela (Come Venezuela) movement won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Machado was ineligible to run for president in 2024 largely because she had made a series of treasonous statements, accepted a diplomatic post from another country in order to plead for intervention in Venezuela (in violation of Article 149 of the Constitution), and supported guarimbas (violent street actions in which people were beaten, burned alive, and beheaded).

She has also championed unilateral U.S. sanctions that have devastated the economy. The Nobel Prize was secured through the work of the Inspire America Foundation (based in Miami, Florida, and led by Cuban American lawyer Marcell Felipe) and by the intervention of four U.S. politicians, three of them Cuban Americans (Marco Rubio, María Elvira Salazar, and Mario Díaz-Balart).

The Cuban American connection is key, showing how this political network that is focused on the overthrow by any means of the Cuban Revolution now sees a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela as a way to advance regime change in Cuba. This is, therefore, not just an intervention against Venezuela, but one against all those governments that the U.S. would like to overthrow.

The Bite

In August 2025, the U.S. military began to amass naval forces in the southern Caribbean, including Aegis-class destroyers and nuclear- powered attack submarines.

In September it began a campaign of extrajudicial strikes on small motorboats in Caribbean waters, bombing at least thirteen vessels and killing at least fifty-seven people – without offering evidence of any drug trafficking links.

By mid-October, the U.S. had deployed more than four thousand troops off Venezuela’s coast and five thousand on standby in Puerto Rico (including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 reaper drones), authorised covert operations inside the country, and flown B-52 ‘demonstration missions’ over Caracas. In late October, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group was deployed to the region. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s government has mobilised the population to defend the country.

Five Scenarios for US Intervention Based on the Past

* * *

Scenario 1: The Brother Sam Option

In 1964, the U.S. deployed several warships off the coast of Brazil. Their presence emboldened General Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, chief of the Army General Staff, and his allies to stage a coup that ushered in a twenty-one-year dictatorship.

But Venezuela is a different terrain. In his first term, Chávez strengthened political education in the military academies and anchored officer training in defense of the 1999 Constitution. A Castelo Branco figure is therefore unlikely to save the day for Washington.

Scenario 2: The Panama Option

In 1989, the U.S. bombed Panama City and sent in special operations troops to capture Manuel Noriega, Panama’s military leader, and bring him to a U.S. prison while U.S.-backed politicians took over the country.

Such an operation would be harder to replicate in Venezuela: its military is far stronger, trained for protracted, asymmetric conflicts, and the country boasts sophisticated air defense systems (notably the Russian S-300VM and Buk-M2E surface-to-air systems).

Any U.S. air campaign would face sustained defense, making the prospect of downed aircraft – a major loss of face – one Washington is unlikely to risk.

Scenario 3: The Iraq Option

A ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign against Caracas and other cities to rattle the population and demoralise the state and military, followed by attempts to assassinate senior Venezuelan leadership and seize key infrastructure.

After such an assault, Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado would likely declare herself ready to take charge and align Venezuela closely with the U.S.

The inadequacy of this maneuver is that the Bolivarian leadership runs deep: the roots of the defense of the Bolivarian project run through working-class barrios, and the military would not be immediately demoralized – unlike in Iraq.

As the interior minister of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, recently noted, “Anyone who wants to can remember Vietnam… when a small but united people with an iron will were able to teach U.S. imperialism a lesson.”

Scenario 4: The Gulf of Tonkin Option

 In 1964, the U.S. escalated its military engagement in the Vietnam War after an incident framed as an unprovoked attack on U.S. destroyers off the country’s coast.

Later disclosures revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) fabricated intelligence to manufacture a pretext for escalation. The U.S. claims it is now conducting naval and air ‘training exercises’ near Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace.

On Oct. 26, the Venezuelan government said it had received information about a covert C.I.A. plan to stage a false-flag attack on U.S. vessels near Trinidad and Tobago to elicit a U.S. response. Venezuelan authorities warned of U.S. manoeuvres and said they will not give in to provocations or intimidation.

Scenario 5: The Qasem Soleimani Option

In January 2020, a U.S. drone strike ordered by Trump killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani was one of Iran’s most senior officials and was responsible for its regional defence strategy across Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.

In an interview on 60 Minutes, former U.S. chargé d’affaires for Venezuela James Story said, “The assets are there to do everything up to and including decapitation of [the] government” – a plain statement of intent to assassinate the president.

After the death of President Hugo Chávez in 2013, U.S. officials predicted that the project would collapse. Twelve years have now passed, and Venezuela continues along the path set forth under Chávez, advancing its communal model whose resilience rests not only on the revolution’s collective leadership but also on strong popular organization.

The Bolivarian project has never been a one-person show.

China and Russia are unlikely to permit a strike on Venezuela without pressing for immediate U.N. Security Council resolutions, and both routinely operate in the Caribbean, including joint exercises with Cuba and global missions such as China’s Mission Harmony 2025.

The hope is that none of these options comes to pass.

What’s become very clear, and CNBC’s Brian Sullivan may have nailed it, is that the record-long government shutdown will end once FAA-mandated flight reductions start forcing airport closures. 

Now, with the final countdown underway, Washington’s political deadlock is set to trigger nationwide airport chaos in the very near term. This will only compel both political parties to compromise and reach a deal to reopen the federal government, or risk facing angry voters. The timing suggests a resolution may emerge as the Thanksgiving travel season begins in the coming weeks.

“Double-stacking the planes now. We’re taking off but later flights going to be hurting worse. Once airports close this thing ends. We don’t all fly private like many in Congress,” Sullivan wrote on X early Sunday morning. 

Double stacking the planes now. We’re taking off but later flights going to be hurting worse.

Once airports close this thing ends.

We don’t all fly private like many in Congress. pic.twitter.com/tI6asF8lCB

— Brian Sullivan (@SullyCNBC) November 9, 2025

On Friday, the FAA told major airlines to reduce daily flights by 4% at 40 major airports, rising to 6% Tuesday and 10% by mid-month. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned that flight reductions could exceed 20% if the government shutdown were not resolved in the weeks ahead. 

By Saturday, staffing issues at controller towers at 42 major airports nationwide disrupted flights in 12 cities, including Atlanta, Newark, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York. Yesterday’s flight cancellations topped 1,550, with 6,700 delays, worsening from Friday’s 1,025 cancellations. Air traffic controllers are increasingly calling out for work because of zero-dollar paychecks amid the government shutdown, now in its 40th day. 

Duffy warned earlier, “It’s only going to get worse… Two weeks before Thanksgiving, you’re going to see air travel be reduced to a trickle.”

.@SecDuffy on the Democrat Shutdown: “It’s only going to get worse… Two weeks before Thanksgiving, you’re going to see air travel be reduced to a trickle.” pic.twitter.com/P5zDPdl2Hk

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) November 9, 2025

Seasonal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint data shows that the number of travelers screened at airport security checkpoints will begin to surge in the week leading up to Thanksgiving, further straining airports during one of the busiest travel periods of the year, unless a deal can be struck in Washington.

Back to Sullivan’s point, “Once airports close this thing ends. We don’t all fly private like many in Congress.” 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a controversy at the BBC over a correction made by presenter Martine Croxall on air when she changed a reference to “pregnant people” to “women.”

The network later received 20 complaints and agreed that Croxall had violated network policies. (For full disclosure, I previously worked as the legal analyst for BBC).

In the segment, Croxall began by stating, “London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has released research, which says that nearly 600 heat-related deaths are expected in the U.K.” She then added “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people — women, and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

When she said “women,” she seemed to briefly pause in frustration in making the change.

According to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), the brief pause and facial expression conveyed bias and a “personal view”:

“The phrase ‘pregnant people’ was followed by a facial expression which has been variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt or exasperation.

Even accepting this explanation, however, the ECU considered the facial expression which accompanied the change of ‘people’ to ‘women’ laid it open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity, and the congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”

I can understand that the network does not want on-air staff to convey their personal views on divisive subjects, particularly controversies that the network is covering.

What I was less clear on was the standard being enforced here.

There is no BBC rule that I know of requiring the use of “pregnant people” as opposed to women.

So, if that is true, the violation was the brief pause and facial expression.

If Croxall had simply made the change without the facial expression, would she be in compliance with network standards?

Croxall clearly disagreed with the nomenclature used by the writers, as many do. The fact that the BBC received 20 complaints is hardly surprising and the reliance on such complaints as proof of meaning is a dangerous practice. It is now common for individuals and groups to file a flurry of complaints against anyone who holds opposing views on issues like transgender rights or identity. The United Kingdom has eviscerated free speech with criminal prosecutions and investigation for years. Flash mobs form quickly to pursue dissenting voices such as J.K. Rowling, who maintain that these policies undermine the progress on women’s rights.

Notably, BBC initially supported Croxall and told complainants that Croxall’s script change was “done for clarity and was in no way meant to be disrespectful. We’re satisfied it was duly accurate and impartial, and in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines.” As more complaints were filed, the network changed its position.

I understand that BBC does not want presenters to express personal views on such subjects on air, but it has remained uncomfortably vague on how presenters address such issues. Croxall clearly felt that “pregnant persons” was a clumsy and inaccurate expression. Is BBC saying that this is the correct way to speak of pregnant women or can presenters change the language, as did Croxall?

The current position seems the worst of all options for BBC to remain silent on the correct term while finding a presenter in violation for how she corrected it.

President Donald Trump on Sunday announced that most Americans would receive a dividend payment of “at least” $2,000 – paid out of US tariff revenues.

“A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone,” Trump posted on Truth Social, adding that tariffs have brought in “trillions of dollars,” and that 401(k) accounts are the “Highest EVER.” He also claimed that the tariffs had caused “No inflation.”

“People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!” he continued.

The Treasury Department said in September that it had collected more than $195 billion from tariffs in 2025, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he expects the US to collect $500 billion or more in tariff revenue annually.

On Sunday morning, Bessent told ABC‘s “This Week” that the administration’s goal with the tariffs was to “rebalance trade” rather than simply take in revenue.

But wait!

Bessent also suggested that the $2,000 dividend could come in several forms – between tax decreases, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, or other deductions. 

Bessent: The $2,000 dividend could come in in lots of forms. It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing in the President’s agenda— no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on social security, deductibility of older loans— those are substantial deductions.

LOL!… pic.twitter.com/XRl5uTvzrn

— Ron Smith (@Ronxyz00) November 9, 2025

Trump floated the idea of a $1,000 to $2,000 “distribution to the people” during an October interview with One America News Network, and said they would bring in over a trillion dollars per year. 

Of course, $2,000 for most Americans would be difficult to claw back if the Supreme Court reverses them. 

Crypto markets immediately reacted (positively) to the potential helicopter drop of cash…

We would expected gold to jump once it opens also.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

AI Earnings Not Strong Enough?

This past week, markets continued to digest earnings from key technology and AI-focused companies, as well as the lingering effects of the Federal Reserve’s recent policy shift. Despite a limited macroeconomic calendar due to the ongoing government shutdown, corporate results kept investors engaged. The market struggled with ongoing narrow breadth and growing sensitivity to forward guidance. Major earnings reports from AI-related and large-cap tech firms revealed continued strength in revenue and profit growth, but fell short of overly optimistic expectations.

According to FactSet, the blended year-over-year earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 in Q3 stands at 10.7%, up from 7.9% at the start of earnings season. Revenue growth has reached 4.9%, exceeding both the five-year and ten-year averages. The Information Technology sector is leading the pack with an earnings growth rate of 26.5%. Consumer Discretionary has also rebounded to positive territory, while Communication Services lagged, weighed down by weakness from companies such as Meta, which beat revenue and earnings estimates but was impacted by a one-time tax-related charge.

Many AI-driven firms beat expectations, but markets reacted cautiously to increased capex and tempered forward guidance. Investor response has been mixed. While earnings beats remain high, several strong reports led to muted or adverse price action. This suggests markets are pricing in not just current performance but also cautious sentiment around future growth, margins, and investment intensity, particularly in AI infrastructure.

FactSet reports the forward 12-month P/E for the S&P 500 is now approximately 22.9x, above the five-year average of 19.9x and the ten-year average of 18.6x. These elevated multiples reflect high investor expectations and confidence, raising the stakes for any missteps or negative surprises in guidance. With the macro calendar limited by the federal shutdown, investor focus is firmly on earnings, capital expenditures (capex) trends, and corporate guidance. In this environment, earnings calls and management commentary matter more than usual.

Speaking of earnings, the most notable factor is the elevated expectations of earnings growth projections heading into 2026. While there are a lot of hopes for next year, the vast majority of earnings growth next year is solely dependent on the “Magnificent 7.” Expectations are currently for negative growth from the bottom 493.

This brings to light a few things that investors should be aware of:

• Earnings growth remains strong but is increasingly priced in.

• A narrow group of large-cap tech and AI stocks is leading market gains.

• Valuations are elevated, and participation remains weak.

• Guidance and capital allocation are under heavy scrutiny, especially in AI-related names.

• With macro data limited, earnings and sentiment remain the dominant short-term drivers.

Investors should remain engaged but selective. The market’s technical structure remains bullish, but fragile beneath the surface. Any disappointment in earnings, guidance, or policy could quickly shift sentiment.

Breadth Tumbles

The S&P 500 closed the week at 6,728 after struggling all week to hold its ground. While the index remains in a defined uptrend and continues to trade above its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, both of which are still rising, the strength of the move is increasingly in question. Momentum remains constructive, with the MACD in a buy signal posture, and the 20-day moving average held as support. But the underlying structure of the market is weakening.

Breadth has notably deteriorated, with the number of stocks outperforming the benchmark index at levels typically associated with larger market corrective processes. Fewer stocks are participating in the upside, and internal momentum is fading. As of Friday, only 55.4% of S&P 500 components remained above their 200-day moving average, a meaningful decline from earlier levels this year. The number of stocks above their 50-day moving average has dropped even more sharply, down to just 40%, with participation narrowing in key sectors.

The market corrected about 3.5% from its all-time highs and remains above the 50-day moving average for now, keeping the bullish trend intact. However, money flow has deteriorated sharply, although we are seeing some buyers entering the market at the 50-day moving average on Friday, confirming support at that level. Relative strength has essentially reversed most of its previous overbought condition. Still, it remains in negative divergence overall, while momentum has triggered a short-term sell signal, which will keep a lid on advances for now.

Technically, the setup remains bullish based on price action alone, but structurally, it is not robust. Breadth weakness, momentum divergence, and declining volume on rallies are red flags. The rally is vulnerable to sharp reversals if broader participation does not materialize soon. A strong trend built on a narrowing foundation is inherently unstable.

Support and Resistance Levels

• Primary Resistance: ~6,850–6,900 (top of the rising trend channel and previous highs)

• Initial Resistance: ~6,767 (approximate 20‑day moving average)

• Initial Support: ~6,674 (approximate 50‑day moving average)

• Primary Support: ~6,497 (100-day moving average)

• Critical Support: ~6,134 (200-day moving average)

In this environment, investors should remain disciplined. The trend is intact, but fragility is growing. Participation in the rally is permissible, but positions should be hedged or trimmed where appropriate. Stops should be tightened on extended names. Without confirmation from broader market internals or macro data, the path forward could become more volatile.

Repo Ripples Turning Into Waves?

In September 2019, a critical but obscure part of the financial system broke. Overnight borrowing rates in the repo market suddenly spiked from around 2% to over 10% in a matter of hours. Banks and dealers couldn’t get the short-term funding they needed to finance Treasury holdings or settle trades. Liquidity froze. Wall Street was caught off guard. The Federal Reserve quickly intervened, launching emergency repo operations to inject cash into the system. Within days, funding markets stabilized. Over the next few months, the Fed expanded its balance sheet again, but not for QE, they insisted, but to keep repo markets functioning. That quiet intervention helped fuel the final leg of the market’s rally into early 2020.

Currently, we are seeing cracks reemerge in this previously unknown part of the financial system. In today’s commentary, we will discuss what it is and why it matters.

The “repo” market, short for “repurchase agreement,” sits at the heart of the financial system. Critically, and why it matters to the financial markets, is that it allows banks, hedge funds, and dealers to borrow cash by using high-quality securities, typically U.S. Treasuries, as collateral. (This is also how money winds up in the financial markets when the Federal Reserve is doing “Quantitative Easing.”)

The transaction is straightforward and is an OVERNIGHT transaction. During this process, one party sells a security with a commitment to repurchase it the next day at a slightly higher price. That price difference represents the cost of borrowing. Typically, the difference between the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) and the Interest Rate on Reserves (IOR) is slightly negative. Currently, that is not the case. Notably, this is not some niche corner of finance. It’s the lifeblood of overnight funding.

Why is this so important? Because TRILLIONS flow through this market every day, and most people have never heard about it.

However, without it, Wall Street doesn’t open.

• Dealers need it to fund their balance sheets.

• Hedge funds rely on it for leverage.

• Money market funds use it to park cash overnight.

• It’s also how the Federal Reserve transmits monetary policy.

When the repo market functions smoothly, short-term interest rates stay in line with the Fed’s targets. When it breaks, liquidity dries up fast. That creates ripple effects in credit, equities, and even Treasury markets.

If repo transactions grind to a halt, it’s not because there’s a lack of collateral or cash, but because of fear. When institutions stop trusting each other, they stop lending to one another. That’s when the financial plumbing clogs, and the consequence of that “clogged plumbing” is rising volatility, strained liquidity, and falling asset prices. The repo market isn’t just important. It’s foundational.

A Redux of 2019? What Does It Mean for the Markets?

Currently, cracks are reappearing. The overnight repo rate is climbing as the use of the Fed’s Standing Repo Facility is increasing, and treasury bill issuance is ballooning.

Most notably, what the Fed once deemed “abundant liquidity” has now fallen below the levels it considers “ample.” The chart shows that the Fed Reserve’s plus Reverse Repos (which, for the past three years, have served as an excess liquidity storage facility used primarily to fund purchases of T-Bills) is now at the lowest level since late 2020.

Sound familiar? It should. The current environment bears a striking resemblance to the lead-up to the September 2019 repo crisis. Back then, the repo rate suddenly spiked from around 2% to over 10% in a single day as Wall Street’s funding machine seized up. Here is an example of what happened.

You have a brand new, fully paid-for Mercedes. You go to your neighbor and ask for an overnight loan of just $10,000, offering him the title to your car as collateral. Your interest rate should be close to the Federal Reserve’s overnight rate, but instead, your neighbor says he wants 10%. That difference is a “risk premium” that is undeserved because the loan is backed by guaranteed collateral, in this case, the car.

But that is what happened in 2019, and the Fed had to intervene with emergency liquidity operations to restore stability.

Why did it happen? In 2019, a combination of tax payments and Treasury auctions drained reserves from the banking system. At the same time, dealers were loaded with collateral they couldn’t finance. Cash lenders didn’t want to step in, even at higher rates, because they were either constrained by regulation or unwilling to take the risk. The repo market, which had always been taken for granted, suddenly became the problem no one was watching.

Today, we’re seeing many of the same ingredients. Heavy Treasury issuance is forcing dealers to take on more collateral, and liquidity is being withdrawn from the system due to the Fed’s quantitative tightening. The problem with the repo market is why the Fed announced it would end the shrinkage of its balance sheet at the end of November. Meanwhile, bank reserve levels have dropped sharply, adding to concerns about overall liquidity.

When stress rises in the repo market, it’s not a technical glitch, but rather a signal that the financial system is under pressure. If this stress deepens, it could lead to a broad tightening of financial conditions that will spill over into the equity and credit markets. Given the Fed’s concern about the “wealth effect” the financial markets provide to economic growth, this has become the third, and unspoken, mandate of Fed policy.

While that may sound frightening, there is a twist. If the Fed steps in to relieve repo pressure, like it did in 2019, it might trigger the opposite of a crash. In other words, the Fed’s actions to stabilize the repo market may lead to a “melt-up” in equities, where risk assets surge, not because fundamentals improve, but because liquidity returns in force. Such a conclusion is not far-fetched, as the Government shutdown has drained over $700 billion from the market, as shown by the sharp increase in the Treasury General Account.

Stealth QE on the Horizon

However, once the Government is reopened, that $700 billion increase in the Treasury General Account will flow back into the economy. That reopening will create a flood of effective stimulus as furloughed workers receive back pay, departments are reopened, and Government contract work resumes. Those dollars wind up deposited into the banking system, increasing bank liquidity. In effect, it is a “stealth QE” that could create a massive scramble for risk assets.

As such, both the end of the Government shutdown and a stabilization of the repo market could have an immediate impact on risk assets. Once dealers can fund collateral without paying punitive rates, liquidity will return, which “greases the wheels” of the entire financial system. Trading flows improve as Hedge funds can effectively re-leverage their portfolios, and credit spreads are expected to tighten.

You will notice in the chart below that this is precisely what happened after the 2019 repo scare. Once the Fed began daily operations to supply liquidity, the S&P 500 rallied to new highs. Then, of course, that liquidity went into overdrive following the onset of the pandemic. While it has since reversed somewhat, there remains, as noted above, “ample” liquidity in the financial system currently.

Just as it was in 2019, the move was not about fundamental improvements; it was simply about “too much money chasing too few assets.”

It is important to note that fixing the repo market isn’t about bailing out Wall Street. It’s about restoring the basic mechanics of financial intermediation. When overnight funding is cheap and available, institutions are willing to trade, lend, and invest. That confidence feeds through to markets. Although most investors don’t track repo rates daily, they feel the effects, as more liquidity means less volatility, tighter spreads, and rising asset prices. At least that is what we should expect in the short term.

However, the resolution needs to be more than a temporary patch. If the Fed signals it’s ready to backstop the market, investors will likely view that as a green light to increase equity risk and change the risk calculus to some degree. The problem is that stocks are already grossly detached from underlying fundamentals, and a resolution to either the Government shutdown or resolving the current repo stress will likely see investors pushing asset prices further away from those fundamentals. But that is how liquidity drives markets, especially when fundamentals look stretched.

For investors, it is worth noting that if the Fed steps in again, the upside could come quickly and substantially. For now, the repo market is the canary in the coal mine. What comes next depends on whether policymakers decide to move soon or wait until stress forces their hand.

Key Catalysts Next Week

The U.S. government shutdown persists, continuing to stall many federal economic data releases. In this environment, the market’s focus shifts sharply to those reports still expected and to key central‑bank commentary. Investors will monitor what limited data is available, along with speeches from Federal Reserve officials and corporate earnings, for directional signals.

In sum, next week offers a sparse macro calendar, making every publication and speech disproportionately important. The NFIB index will serve as one of the few viable high‑frequency signals of business sentiment. The Fed remarks by Cook and Jefferson will be scrutinised for hints of policy shift given the data blackout. With earnings still unfolding, investor attention remains on how companies navigate cost pressures, demand trends, and AI‑driven investment in a constrained economic backdrop. In such an environment, absence of negative surprises may support risk assets, but the lack of fresh data increases vulnerability to unexpected developments.

Trade accordingly.

Via Remix News,

The U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is officially ending funding for the Hungarian Language Service at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), “Szabad Europa.”

In a letter from USAGM CEO Kari Lake to Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart (FL-26), chairman of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Lake directly references Hungary as a strong ally of the United States and notes how USAGM funding for Szabad Europa served to “undermine” its prime minister, Viktor Orbán. 

“It is the position of the Trump Administration that the original justification for adding Szabad Europa to RFE/RL’s programming lineup in 2019 is not aligned with U.S. national interests. This programming has undermined President Trump’s foreign policy by opposing the duly elected Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. As you know, Prime Minister Orban was (and is) the leader of Hungary, which is both a strong U.S. ally and a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).”

Viktor Orbán’s political director, Balázs Orbán, posted on X to celebrate the news, along with a photo of the letter.

“Originally created to deliver free, uncensored news behind the Iron Curtain, Radio Free Europe once played a key role in promoting liberty during the Cold War,” he posted. 

“Over time, however, the outlet lost its original mission, turning into an ideologically driven platform promoting liberal activism, including LGBTQ and gender campaigns, across Central and Eastern Europe. Under the Biden administration, this shift deepened further, as the service increasingly engaged in politically motivated narratives aimed at undermining Hungary’s democratically elected government.

“The Trump administration’s decision marks a return to sober, ally-based cooperation built on mutual respect and balanced partnership,” Orbán’s political director wrote.

Lake further stated in her letter that taxpayer money would only be used for content and activities that “serve the American people,” adding that “undermining staunch allies does not serve the American people.”

Read more here…

At Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting in Austin, Texas, on Thursday evening, more than 75% of investors approved Elon Musk’s $1 trillion CEO Performance Award. The package is tied to ambitious milestones, including nationwide robotaxi deployment, large-scale production of the Optimus humanoid robot, and market-capitalization thresholds designed to align long-term value creation with Musk’s strategic vision to dominate the 2030s by controlling the most advanced technologies.

A limited internal production of Optimus has already begun at Tesla’s Fremont, California factory. The goal next year is to ramp up series production with an eventual goal of a million humanoid robots per year.  

“So we’re going to launch on the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever, starting with building a one million unit production line in Fremont. And that’s Line One. And then a 10-million-unit-per-year production line here (at Giga Texas). I don’t know where we’re going to put the one hundred million unit production line, maybe on Mars. But I think it’s going to literally get to one hundred million a year, maybe even a billion a year,” Musk told investors at the annual shareholder meeting yesterday

Elon Musk on Optimus:

“The robots are just walking around the office, 24/7 with no one minding them & then they go charge themselves. It’s going to be the biggest product of all time, bigger than cell phones, bigger than anything. There could be 10s of billions of robots.” pic.twitter.com/BnrvJLBqIk

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) November 6, 2025

In October, we cited Chinese media that said Tesla placed a $685 million order for linear actuators from Sanhua Intelligent Controls, with deliveries expected to start early next year. 

Tesla is the leader and one of the few U.S. companies that can scale humanoid robot production ahead of the 2030s. 

We shift our attention to China, where rare-earth minerals and high-tech factories are plentiful, and find that a number of robot companies are gearing up for mass production. 

Goldman Sachs analyst Jacqueline Du spoke with a handful of Chinese companies embedded within the humanoid robot supply chain, including Sanhua, Tuopu, Rongtai, Shuanghuan, Minth, Joyson, Zhaowei, Best Precision, and Shuanglin. 

Du found that most of these companies are ramping up series production in China, Thailand, and to a lesser extent, Mexico. 

Here are Du’s key takeaways after her meeting with these companies that provide clients with a snapshot of the humanoid robot space in China:

• Most suppliers are actively planning capacity both in China and overseas (primarily in Thailand, and less in Mexico), to support potential humanoid robot mass production, though no company has yet confirmed sizable orders or definitive production timelines. Current capacity planning ranges from ~100k to 1mn robot equivalent units per year (which looks bullish on industry growth outlook vs GSe of 1.38mn units of global humanoid robot shipment by 2035E). Most firms intend to scale up gradually upon actual order placement and therefore not necessarily indicating an imminent oversupply risk but most supply chain companies have an optimistic forward-looking view on industry outlook;

• Across the ecosystem, suppliers are broadening their product portfolios, evolving from single components to integrated modules, expanding product categories from actuators to sensors and structural parts, each targeting ambitious market share gains. It is quite evident that all of these companies that are more or less levered to the automobile industry appear eager to expand into robotics components in search of new growth engines and at the same time to better utilize their existing capacities with certain production synergies;

• Many companies are aggressively showcasing their technical capabilities and scalable production readiness, emphasizing their rapid design-to-product turnaround, agile service as key comparative edge to secure and expand market share in the supply chain. We note mentions of robotics customers such as Tesla Optimus, Agibot, Leju, Xpeng, etc. which could suggest these companies are more likely the earlier ones which rely more on outside suppliers to kick start volume production of robots with timing commonly expected in 2H26E;

• We remain constructive on long run humanoid robot technology trend but will need to monitor the key robot products performance and concrete end-applications to assess whether a technology inflection point will be near in sight. Key checkpoints afterwards are: 1) Tesla Optimus Gen 3 launch by Feb/Mar 2026; 2) Public disclosure of China/global humanoid robot companies’ 2026E order/shipment targets by end-2025/early-2026. We are Buy rated on Sanhua H, Inovance and Shuanghuan; Neutral rated on Sanhua A, Leaderdrive, Best Precision and Moon’s Electric under our coverage which are related to the humanoid robot space.

Our coverage has focused on the rise of humanoid and robodogs:

• Goldman’s Chat With Top Robotics Firm Reveals Skynet Humanoid Timeline

• Goldman’s Investing Guide To Skynet

• “Here Come Humanoids”: Morgan Stanley Braces For The Looming Phase Shift in AI

• There’s An iPhone Moment Happening With Humanoids

• “iPhone Moment” Nears For Humanoid Robots

• China Warns of Rogue Robot Troops Unleashing Terminator-Style “Indiscriminate Killings”

• China Humanoid Robotics Index Jumps After Unitree Debuts “Stellar Hunter”

• Vacuuming, Mopping, Mowing: The Household Robots Are Coming

• Meta Plans For New AI Humanoid Robot For “Household Chores”; Headline Fuels Stock Rally

• A New Fear Unlocked.

• Goldman Finds “Inflection Point” With Humanoid Robots; We Tested Unitree’s Robodog

Give it until the 2030s before these bots start entering the average household.

ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can access the full note in the usual spot, including the analyst’s top bullish picks and detailed company breakdowns.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The roadmap is already set: in the coming years, the EU and its member states will make both businesses and consumers pay even more for CO₂ emissions. BASF CEO Markus Kamieth warns of the enormous destructive potential of this policy.

Truth comes on pigeon feet – Friedrich Nietzsche already knew that. And apparently, the same applies to European climate policy: slowly, but inevitably, the reality of the true costs of the green transformation and its impact on Germany’s industrial foundation is emerging.

On October 29, BASF’s CEO Markus Kamieth faced the press during the quarterly results presentation. What he announced was another cold shower for anyone still hoping for a new economic miracle.

Weak Results in a Stable Environment

The world’s largest chemical company reported a 3% decline in revenue in Q3 2025 compared to last year, while EBITDA fell by 5%. BASF is under massive pressure and has already cut 1,400 jobs to meet growing cost pressures.

BASF’s numbers have to be seen against the backdrop of a slowly recovering global economic cycle. Especially the U.S. economy, growing nearly 4%, is driving strong demand. Economies in China and India continue to expand dynamically, particularly in sectors critical to the chemical industry.

While the global economy gains momentum, BASF – like much of Germany’s chemical sector and the broader industry – continues to lose ground.

The company’s main site in Ludwigshafen is hit hardest, leaving its 33,000 employees facing an uncertain future.

Criticism of the Climate Course

Kamieth was unexpectedly outspoken during the presentation. In addition to criticizing EU trade policy and rising energy costs in Germany, he struck at a rarely openly discussed wound: the EU’s climate policy.

Kamieth didn’t mince words, calling the European CO₂ emissions trading system (EU ETS 2) what it is: an attack on Europe’s industrial foundation.

For BASF alone, if the current climate course within CO₂ trading remains unchanged, annual additional costs of around €1 billion will arise from 2027 onward, when exemptions are removed – costs borne exclusively by European industry, while the rest of the world simply does not participate.

Kamieth hit a sore spot. EU industry is being financially squeezed by an ideologized CO₂ policy. Deindustrialization is – whether unspoken or suppressed – the result of Brussels’ policies and their national enforcers, whose only response to their self-inflicted disaster is ever-new subsidies.

Rare Criticism

Criticism of this centrally planned climate disaster for industry is rare. All the more remarkable are the unmistakable words of the BASF CEO – just two weeks after the sharp critique from Evonik CEO Christian Kullmann. Both direct their warnings to the same address: European isolationism in climate policy.

Kullmann also called for a comprehensive reform of CO₂ emissions trading – or even the complete abolition of the system. He openly called it “economic madness.”

Both CEOs understand global competition. And they know: nobody will follow the Brussels line.

Climate Club Increasingly Isolated

The global climate club is becoming increasingly isolated. At COP30 in Brazil, the U.S. exit from the Paris Agreement confirmed that even leading industrial nations no longer follow Europe’s push for CO₂ dominance.

This development exposes cracks in the belief in a solely CO₂-driven climate change – a signal European climate policy cannot conceal.

Both COP30 and the increasingly frequent EU climate summits reveal the lengths to which authorities go to prevent these doubts from taking root in public consciousness.

Too much is at stake: the gigantic CO₂ tax machine, which in the coming years is designed to funnel massive funds primarily to Brussels’ central EU apparatus.

Ironclad Media Curtain

The situation is similar to nuclear power. Behind an ironclad media curtain spun by the political-media complex around this energy source, the German public remains unaware that nuclear power is making a global comeback – aiming to nearly double capacity in the next three decades.

The silence in climate policy has been bought at a high price – through the climate redistribution machine, which increasingly restrains large parts of the economy.

The annual volume of CO₂ trading is set to nearly triple to around €100 billion in the coming years, plus CO₂ taxes and other climate levies that also hit consumers.

Consider, for instance, the flight levies that are literally wiping Germany off the map as a location for air travel.

Enormous Economic Losses

The actual capital misallocation forced by climate policy and lawmakers is difficult to quantify. We are dealing with a tangle of taxes, subsidies, fiscal advantages, hidden support, and price guarantees.

Yet, it is realistic to estimate that around 4–5% of GDP is being burned outside market mechanisms.

With the expansion of the trading system and the massive increase in climate subsidies, Germany will lose €150–200 billion in productive capital annually. It is therefore no exaggeration to call Brussels’ climate policy a poverty engine – one that is systematically draining Europe’s industrial base in global competition.

The EU has established a Climate Social Fund (CSF), initially equipped with around €10 billion per year, to support households and small businesses in the so-called green transformation. This shows Brussels is fully aware of the consequences – making this policy ethically all the more reprehensible.

We are witnessing increasing centralization of political power in Brussels – justified by the moral imperative of carbon dioxide – a civilizational bow to the climate cult.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.