Last week, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro reached out to Russia, China and Iran for possible military aid, after US President Donald Trump mulled a military attack amid a massive buildup of American forces in the region.

“The requests to Moscow were made in the form of a letter meant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and was intended to be delivered during a visit to the Russian capital by a senior aide this month,” the Washington Post (CIA) reported, adding that Maduro also sent a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping seeking “expanded military cooperation” between the two countries in order to counter “the escalation between the U.S. and Venezuela.”

Now, The Atlantic (also CIA) writes that Maduro is open to a managed exit / exile, as long as Trump promises amnesty. 

Maduro would be open to a managed exit if the United States provides amnesty for him and his top lieutenants, lifts its bounties, and facilitates a comfortable exile, people who have dealings with the Caracas regime say. “If there is enough pressure, and if there is enough candy in the dish,” the person who speaks to officials in both countries said, “everything is on the table with Maduro.”

Of course, one needs to view the ‘managed exit’ thing with a grain of salt given the source and timing of what’s going on. 

Of note, Trump’s Venezuela envoy Richard Grenell was originally tasked with negotiating a deal with Maduro that would allow: 

• U.S. access to Venezuela’s oil and minerals
• Crackdowns on gangs/drug transit
• Release of detained Americans
• Resumption of deportation flights to Venezuela

While Grenell secured early concessions, including the release of six American hostages, Trump abruptly ended Grenell’s negotiations after Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed for a more aggressive strategy. 

Grenell, however, had made headway in negotiating a “managed exit” for Maduro. 

Talks of a managed exit come amid US strikes on allegedly cartel-linked boats near Venezuela and in the Pacific, killing at least 65 people across 16 attacks, which was followed by the Pentagon launching the largest Caribbean buildup since 1962 – which include: 

• the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier
• 8+ warships
• ~10,000 troops
• nuclear submarine
• drones and fighter jets

In short – way more than what might be needed to take on cartels – implying imminent regime change (which The Atlantic is surely happy about). Trump has also authorized the CIA to conduct potentially lethal activities in Venezuela (as if they needed permission). 

Russia Ready to Rock

With tensions escalating, Russia has responded to Maduro’s pleas for aid – with Moscow now publicly saying it’s prepared to provide support, including:

• Repairing Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets
• Upgrading radar and engines
• Delivering ~14 missile units
• Possible supply of new Oreshnik missile systems

Moscow is considering this to be legitimate bilateral military-technical cooperation, not covert aid – which would of course raise the cost and the risk of a US strike or invasion, and risks a direct proxy confrontation, Newsweek reports, noting that foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova confirmed Caracas’s request. 

Moscow’s response could reshape great power dynamics in Latin America and alter the regional security balance. Maduro’s request underscores Venezuela’s heightened sense of vulnerability and its turn to Moscow for critical military backing.

Zakharova said that Moscow stood ready to “respond appropriately to the requests” from Venezuela while requesting that all parties refrain from escalatory actions. Earlier statements from her have emphasized that Moscow acts within bilateral military‑technical cooperation agreements and laws, and that the maintained presence of Russian military advisers in Venezuela is consistent with those deals.

Russia’s involvement would rugpull Marco Rubio’s dreams of “quick regime change” – after framing Venezuela as a narco-terrorist state and a destabilizing force that serves as a proxy to US adversaries. It also means Grenell’s push for a negotiated exit may be off the table, as Maduro may feel he now has leverage to wait out Trump, and/or demand larger incentives. 

And so, it appears the entire regime change endeavor just became much riskier for team Trump.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,.

In a significant win for the Trump Administration, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday afternoon on the Trump Administration’s requirement that passport holders use their sex assigned at birth and that such requirements do not violate equal protection guarantees. While a brief, unsigned opinion issued on the interim docket, it represents a major ruling on the constitutional protections afforded to transgender individuals.

The case began with a challenge to an executive order issued on January 20, 2025, declaring that the federal government would only “recognize two sexes, male and female.” The order instructed the State Department to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”

The litigants alleged that the order and underlying policy were a denial of equal protection.

I previously discussed the Supreme Court’s upholding a Tennessee ban on transgender medical treatments for adolescents. One of the most notable aspects of this decision was the concurrence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejecting the claim that transgender status qualifies as a group entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.” However, the Court stressed that “This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasisuspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”

In her concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directly rejected the claim:

The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so.3 To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex.

…Nor is the transgender population a “discrete group,” as our cases require.

…The boundaries of the group, in other words, are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. Finally, holding that transgender people constitute a suspect class would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion.

…The conclusion that transgender individuals do not share the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of “a discrete group” is enough to demonstrate that transgender status does not define a suspect class.

…The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status. Rational-basis review applies, which means that courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.

While that was a concurrence with only Justice Thomas, I wrote at the time that the concurrence “likely speaks to the view of a three or four other members on the Court.”

It now appears that it clearly did represent the majority’s view.

In this opinion, the Court rejects the rulings of U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the injunction of the policy. Both courts would have forced the Trump Administration to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans that reflect the sex designation of their choosing.

However, the Court ruled that “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

In rejecting the equal protection claim, the Court added that there is no evidence that a policy requiring a passport to display the holder’s biological sex can only be the result of “a bare  . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” It further found that the challengers are unlikely to prevail under the Administrative Procedure Act as “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Trump administration is thus “likely to succeed on the merits” of its defense against the challengers’ claims, the court wrote. And because Kobick’s order “enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document,” the court said, the government “will ‘suffer[] a form of irreparable injury’” if the order is not paused.

That produced another fiery dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

Jackson slammed her colleagues:

“The Court … fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.”

Jackson dismissed the opinion as a type of “back-of-the-napkin assessment” in a cursory opinion. She objected that, not only had the Administration not shown any irreparable harm absent emergency relief, but the challengers “have shown they will suffer concrete injuries if the Government’s Passport Policy is immediately enforced.” She concluded by claiming that “the Court’s failure to acknowledge the basic norms of equity jurisdiction is more than merely regrettable. It is an abdication of the Court’s duty to ensure that equitable standards apply equally to all litigants—to transgender people and the Government alike.”

The opinion substantially reinforced Barrett’s earlier position. While the government had the advantage of a case in an area where considerable deference is given to executive decision-making, the underlying equal protection holding is a major setback for advocates seeking to establish transgender status as protected in the same way as race or religion.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal appeals court on Nov. 6 allowed Texas to enforce a state ban on drag shows performed in the presence of minors.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voted 2–1 to vacate a 2023 injunction blocking the law that was issued by a federal district court.

The appeals court directed the district court to throw out pending claims against all of the defendants except Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the case known as The Woodlands Pride Inc. v. Paxton for lack of standing. The lead plaintiff, a nonprofit known as The Woodlands Pride Inc., which was found to lack standing, sponsors an annual pride festival in Montgomery County, Texas.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

The law known as Texas Senate Bill 12 regulates “sexually oriented performances” that take place on public property and in the presence of minors, U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote in the majority opinion.

A “sexually oriented performance” is defined as “a visual performance” that features a performer who “is nude” or “engages in sexual conduct,” and “appeals to the prurient interest in sex.”

The law has never been enforced because the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas blocked it before it could take effect. Claiming the law violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, challengers sued to block it under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that allows individuals to sue the government for civil rights violations, Engelhardt said.

The appeals court found that The Woodlands Pride Inc. does not have standing to pursue an injunction against any of the appellants because its activities are not affected by the state law.

The activities the nonprofit acknowledged doing, such as distributing condoms and lubricant, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, are not prohibited by the state law, Engelhard said.

“None of the trial evidence indicates that the performances are ‘in some sense erotic.’ Because Woodlands Pride does not intend to engage in conduct that is arguably proscribed by S.B.12, it does not have standing to seek an injunction against any of the appellants,” he said.

However, the co-plaintiff production company, 360 Queen Entertainment, may continue its lawsuit challenging the state law. Its performances may be affected by the law because they contain nudity and have been attended by children, the appeals court ruled.

Engelhardt said that the district court’s ruling came out before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which laid out criteria for determining whether the rights of performers or businesses were being violated.

The appeals court found that the district court did not carry out a proper analysis of whether the state law violates the First Amendment rights of performers and businesses.

“Consequently, we are unequipped to undertake this task in the first instance, and remand for the district court to do so,” the appeals court said, sending the case back to the district court.

U.S. Circuit Judge James Dennis dissented in part.

Dennis agreed with the majority that the case should be remanded to the district court, but disagreed with denying standing to The Woodlands Pride Inc. and another co-plaintiff.

The plaintiffs and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was part of the legal team challenging Senate Bill 12, expressed disappointment at the new ruling.

“Today’s decision is heartbreaking for drag performers, small businesses, and every Texan who believes in free expression,” they said in a statement.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. No reply was received by publication time.

The downward spiral of sustainable equity stocks built on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) globalist movement has deepened under the Trump era, as investor focus and capital flows have pivoted sharply toward the booming artificial intelligence trade.

A Goldman Sachs team led by analyst Varsha Venugopal offered clients a fresh snapshot of the darkening ESG space, cautioning that:

Sustainable equity outflows continued in September (-$8.4 bn) for the ninth consecutive month. Outflows were driven by W. European active funds (-$8.3 bn), while active funds in N. America (-$2.5 bn) and RoW (-$0.4 bn) saw more modest outflows. Passive strategies saw inflows (+$2.8 bn) across all regions in the latest month. Integration strategies saw outflows (-$8.3 bn), as did thematic strategies (-$0.8 bn), though only marginally. Global Sustainable fixed income flows turned modestly negative in September (-$1.8 bn).

The broader picture for sustainable equity fund flows reveals a continued wave of outflows, driven mainly by heavy redemptions across Europe and the U.S. during the summer months.

Sustainable equity funds saw outflows in 3Q25 (-$70.1 bn), largely driven by redemptions from select funds in July (Exhibit 6).

W. Europe drove outflows in September (-$6.2 bn), while N. America (-$2.1 bn) and RoW (-$0.01 bn) saw marginal to negligible outflows.

Europe

North America 

All sustainable thematic categories, climate, human development, etc., have recorded nonstop outflows for nine consecutive quarters.

“Sustainable fund equity AUM penetration” refers to the percentage of total equity assets under management (AUM) invested in ESG-labeled funds. The data below shows that this phenomenon has largely lost momentum after globalist Wall Street bankers drove the ESG bubble into hyperdrive during the Biden–Harris regime era.

For the last few years, we’ve pointed out that the ESG and climate-driven investment bubble was destined to burst. This latest report confirms that equity outflows are continuing and that the ESG obsession, which forced the premature retirement of reliable fossil-fuel power generation in favor of unreliable solar and wind, has proven a disaster for grid stability in the age of energy-hungry AI data centers.

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full report in the usual place. 

Authored by Ron Paul via DailyReckoning.com,

According to data collected by the research firm Statista, 29 percent of Americans cannot afford to take a vacation this year. A vacation is not the only thing Americans are struggling to afford. The failure of wages to keep up with price inflation is why household debt hit a record level of 18.4 trillion dollars this year, with the average household owing more than 100,000 dollars.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for the decline in American living standards and the rise in income inequality. The turning point in the people’s economic fortunes was on August 15, 1971.

That is when then-President Richard Nixon closed the “gold window,” severing the last link between the dollar and gold. This left America with a purely fiat currency and no restraint on the Federal Reserve’s ability to create money.

When the Federal Reserve pumps money into the economy the new money is not equally distributed. It first goes to wealthy and well-connected individuals. These individuals benefit from having increased purchasing power before the new money has caused price increases.

The Fed also contributes to economic instability and inequality by creating bubbles that distort the signals sent by the market. This causes over-investment in some sectors. When bubbles burst, workers employed in certain sectors lose their jobs, while those at top often suffer at most a modest setback.

The government bails out the “too big to fail” corporations, but the government never considers workers and homeowners too big to fail.

The Federal Reserve facilitates the growth of the welfare-warfare state by purchasing Treasury bonds, thus monetizing federal debt.

The majority of government spending is on programs benefiting powerful special interests. This includes in large part the military-industrial complex that gobbles up more money from the government each year.

The Federal Reserve’s continued devaluation of the dollar to finance an empire abroad and a welfare state at home is the driving force behind the erosion of the people’s living standards. As the dollar loses purchasing power, demand for government assistance increases, leading to more government spending, more debt monetization, and a further decline in living standards.

The fact that almost a third of Americans cannot afford a vacation illustrates how fiat money harms average Americans. Continued growth of federal debt and Fed-created inflation will lead to a major economic crisis.

This will either induce or be caused by a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. The result will be a rise of demagogic authoritarians of both left and right and increased political violence, leading to an increase in government repression.

Those of us who know the truth must continue to explain that the solution to our problems is a vacation from the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that facilitates government growth at the expense of the people’s standards of living and liberty.

Limited government, free markets, and peaceful relations and free trade with as many nations as possible are components of the path to lasting peace and prosperity.

Update (1508ET): That didn’t take long…

30 minutes after Democrats offered to reopen the government if Republicans agree to extend pandemic-era (temporary) Obamacare enhancements, Republicans rejected it outright – with one senior Senate GOP aide saying it’s ‘dead on arrival,’ Bloomberg reports. 

Yet, stonks appear to think we’re close to a deal regardless…

*  *  *

Update (1440ET): It appears we may be close to a resolution to reopen the government – as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly about to make an offer: Extend Obamacare enhanced subsidies for one year in exchange for their votes, according to Punchbowl News‘ Max Cohen.

“I’ve spoken with my caucus, and Democrats are offering a very simple compromise,” Schumer said during a Friday speech on the Senate floor. “Democrats are ready to clear the way to quickly pass a government funding bill that includes health care affordability. Leader Thune just needs to add a clean, one-year extension of the ACA tax credits to the CR so that we can immediately address rising health care costs.“

“Now, the ball is in the Republicans’ court. We need Republicans to just say yes,” he continued. 

Schumer is also demanding a bipartisan commission to negotiate the subsidies. 

SCHUMER is also proposing a “bipartisan committee” to negotiate Obamacare subsidies.

So: 1 year ext of the tax credits + reopen govt + bipartisan commission.

Johnson and Jeffries have been opposed to a one-year extension.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) November 7, 2025

Speaking on the floor, Schumer said the government could reopen “within a few hours” if Republicans accept the Democrat proposal, while Democratic Sen. Gary Peters said that if Republicans accept the offer, “we could open the government today.”

“Wouldn’t that be fabulous? Show that we can come together,” Peters continued, adding “Compromise is a two-way street.” 

Of note, Republicans already offered this to Democrats in earlier negotiations even though House Speaker Mike Johnson opposed the idea.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is keeping lawmakers in a rare Friday session, with votes possibly coming over the weekend to reopen the government.

• Schumer could also make more demands, Axios reports.
• The proposal for the one-year extension has been internally pushed by Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI).

Markets appear pleased with the development…

Polymarket betters are starting to move…

Basically democrats are agreeing to something republicans offered weeks ago.

They’re so weak that they took away peoples paycheck for governorships in blue states.

Parasitic

— WorldGoneMad (@qu3stionevrthg) November 7, 2025

Developing…

*  *  *

The Senate will vote for a 15th time today on a short-term funding bill to reopen the government – with a growing number of Republicans indicating that they’re open to caving over Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is offering Democrats post-shutdown votes on ACA and tax credits in an attempt to win Democratic support and end the standoff, which is now in its 37th day. 

“I’m willing to give Democrats all the things they want,” Thune said Friday. 

The comments come after Democratic support for a deal to reopen the government has failed over such promises – with Senate dems rejecting a Thursday proposal to pass a continuing resolution to three full-year appropriations bills that would fund military construction, veterans’ affairs, the Department of Agriculture and the legislative branch. 

Democratic senators discussed the proposal at a party luncheon and concluded that it didn’t provide strong enough assurances that Trump and the GOP-controlled house would renew the pandemic-era (short term) ACA subsidies set to expire in January. 

Thune needs at least eight Democrats to cross the aisle in order to reopen the government – and is five short of what he needs. 

“I trust John Thune, but here’s a fact: It’s beyond his control if we … get an enforceable agreement, because we have to get buy-in from the House of Representatives,” said Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), who’s been part of talks to end the shutdown, noting that he doesn’t trust House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to stick to any deals. 

Meanwhile, President Trump reiterated his call for Senate R’s to end the filibuster. 

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) says Trump refused to stick to the deal Senate Republicans negotiated during the 2018-2019 shutdown triggered by a fight over the US-Mexico border wall and immigration policy.

“We had a bipartisan negotiation to solve the problem, came up with a bill — Sen. [Susan] Collins [R-Maine] was involved — and, at the very last minute, President Trump pulled out the rug out from under all the negotiators and said, ‘There’ll be no bill,’” Durbin said. 

Without Trump’s public approval for a deal that would include ACA negotiations, Democrats don’t think Thune can deliver 60 Senate votes to keep health insurance premiums where they are. 

Thune even acknowledged Thursday that his power is limited.

“I can’t — and I’ve made this very clear to them — I can’t guarantee them an outcome. I can guarantee them a process. They can litigate the issue, get the vote on the floor,” he said. “

“Presumably, they have some way of getting a vote in the House at some point, but I can’t speak for the House,” he added.

“And obviously, I can’t guarantee an outcome here.”

Update (1420ET):

Ahead of today’s Senate vote, there are growing signs the longest government shutdown on record could soon end, with Polymarket odds indicating a 24% chance it will be resolved between November 12 and 15.

If the shutdown drags on into the middle of the month or longer, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned Friday that flight reductions could reach 20%. 

“If this continues, and I have more controllers who decide they can’t come to work, can’t control the airspace, but instead have to take a second job — with that, you might see 10 percent would have been a good number, because we might go to 15 percent or 20 percent,” Duffy said at a Breitbart News event in Washington DC. 

Duffy told The Hill, “Could it go there? That’s possible. There’s no plan for that,” adding, “I assess the data and how many controllers I have, and I’m just saying we’re going to make decisions based on what we see in the airspace to make sure we keep it safe. I hope it goes the other direction.” 

“I’ve had some complaints from Democrats, ‘We want to see the data. … This is political,'” Duffy said during the event with Breitbart. “This has not been political. We have worked overtime to make sure that we minimize the impact on the American people.”

As of this afternoon, FAA flight cancellations are expected to top 4% across 40 airports nationwide. An earlier update below specifies the most impacted airport.

*   *   * 

A wave of flight cancellations and delays is already rippling across U.S. airports after the Federal Aviation Administration ordered airlines to reduce 4% of flights at 40 of the nation’s busiest airports to ease pressure on unpaid air traffic controllers amid the record-long government shutdown. The airlines most at risk today include Spirit, Frontier, and United.

The FAA’s unprecedented directive will cut flight operations by 4% today, rising to 6% by next Tuesday and reaching 10% by mid-month, that’s if the federal government remains shut down.

For some context, a 10% reduction will result in about 4,400 flights canceled per day, causing widespread travel chaos nationwide ahead of the holiday period later this month. 

 As of Friday morning, the aviation website FlightAware shows 822 flight cancellations within, into, or out of the U.S. and 805 delays within, into, or out of the U.S. Those numbers are expected to rise through the day.

Cancellations begin: 

We are back at CVG this morning as the FAA flight reduction goes into effect at 6 AM. So far 6 arriving flights have been cancelled, no departures cancelled yet but one has been delayed by an hour. We are bringing you live updates on @FOX19 pic.twitter.com/KiDObn4qAP

— Caroline Gerhart (@CGerhart_News) November 7, 2025

Has your flight from Atlanta been cancelled today? @nytimes wants to hear about it. DM me or comment below. pic.twitter.com/VXS5eHqnCc

— Sean Keenan (@ThatSeanKeenan) November 7, 2025

Major U.S. Airports Affected by FAA Flight Reductions:

• ANC – Ted Stevens Anchorage International

• ATL – Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International

• BOS – Boston Logan International

• BWI – Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall

• CLT – Charlotte Douglas International

• CVG – Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International

• DAL – Dallas Love Field

• DCA – Ronald Reagan Washington National

• DEN – Denver International

• DFW – Dallas/Fort Worth International

• DTW – Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County

• EWR – Newark Liberty International

• FLL – Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International

• HNL – Daniel K. Inouye Honolulu International

• HOU – William P. Hobby (Houston)

• IAD – Washington Dulles International

• IAH – George Bush Intercontinental (Houston)

• IND – Indianapolis International

• JFK – John F. Kennedy International (New York)

• LAS – Harry Reid International (Las Vegas)

• LAX – Los Angeles International

• LGA – LaGuardia (New York)

• MCO – Orlando International

• MDW – Chicago Midway International

• MEM – Memphis International

• MIA – Miami International

• MSP – Minneapolis–St. Paul International

• OAK – Oakland International

• ONT – Ontario International

• ORD – Chicago O’Hare International

• PDX – Portland International

• PHL – Philadelphia International

• PHX – Phoenix Sky Harbor International

• SAN – San Diego International

• SDF – Louisville Muhammad Ali International

• SEA – Seattle–Tacoma International

• SFO – San Francisco International

• SLC – Salt Lake City International

• TEB – Teterboro (New Jersey)

• TPA – Tampa International

Mapping Where Cancellations and Delays Will Originate

Later today, the Senate will vote for the 15th time to reopen the federal government. Earlier this week, reports indicated that eight centrist Democrats were prepared to join Republicans in ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history. However, the party’s far-left progressive wing, which prioritizes illegal aliens over American citizens and has become the new face of the Democratic Party, is pushing back against reopening the government.

Separate, but in markets, FAA-enforced flight cancellations are expected to weigh on jet fuel demand across major US airport hubs.

Check back later for updates. We suspect delays and cancellations will mount throughout the day.  

Authored by ‘sundance’ via TheConservativeTreehouse.com,

I would not get too spun up about this yet because investigators and reviewers in/around Washington DC, have a ton of catching up to do on the material evidence against former CIA Director John Brennan.

Additionally, there is an institutional aversion to targeting anything to do with the CIA because the information needed for most direct evidence is behind a legislative authorized locked door.

FBI building, left – Main Justice (DOJ) building on right

That said, Fox News is reporting that a grand jury in DC and/or FL is potentially going to be used to issue subpoenas against John Brennan.

The primary issue surrounds Brennan telling congress in 2023 the “Steele Dossier” was not used in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), and current DNI Tulsi Gabbard releasing evidence proving it was.

(Fox News) – Justice Department officials in Miami and Washington, D.C., are actively preparing to issue several grand jury subpoenas relating to an investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, Fox News has learned.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe; Fox News is told.

Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, referred Brennan to the DOJ, saying that the former CIA chief “willfully and intentionally” made false statements to Congress.

Jordan accused Brennan of lying in his 2023 Judiciary Committee testimony by denying that the CIA used the Steele dossier in prepping the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, and falsely claiming the CIA opposed including the dossier. (more)

President Trump’s January Executive Order says in part, “The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of the appropriate departments and agencies within the Intelligence Community, shall take all appropriate action to review the activities of the Intelligence Community over the last 4 years and identify any instances where the Intelligence Community’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies of this order, and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the National Security Advisor, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of this order.”  {source}

DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been working on this for nine months.

Tulsi Gabbard retrieved and released a host of documents relating to the fraudulent ICA construct, including the use of the Steele Dossier.  Gabbard also declassified and released the email from former DNI James Clapper who was pressuring NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to go along with the team goal, and blame Russia:

“Understand your concern. It is essential that we (CIA/NSA/FBI/ODNI) be on the same page, and are all supportive of the report -in the highest tradition of “That’s OUR story, and we’re stickin’ to it.”  This evening CIA has provided to the NIC the complete draft generated by the ad hoc fusion cell. We will facilitate as much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report, but, more time is not negotiable. We may have to compromise our “normal” modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.  This is one project that has to be a team sport.”

DNI James Clapper, December 22, 2016

Remember, on July 20, 2025, DNI Tulsi Gabbard gave this interview.  

Within the interview, Tulsi Gabbard emphasizes how important it is for the people who engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to be held accountable.  Gabbard notes there are now whistleblowers from within the IC agencies who have come forward to discuss how the intelligence apparatus was intentionally weaponized.

In her opinion as expressed, there is enough direct evidence now available to the Dept of Justice to begin criminal indictments against all of the participants.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard outlines how the documents released show how the Obama administration actively engaged the Intelligence Community to fabricate a false and malicious conspiracy against the incoming Trump administration.

I like how within the interview Director Gabbard emphasizes within her role she is able to reach into each of the eighteen intelligence agencies and extract documents that pertain to singular issues, in this case the role of Russia in the 2016 election. 

This cross-silo investigative ability is why the DNI office is so important to revealing information from within individual silos.

One month ago we discussed why isotope-developer ASP Isotopes (ASPI) is emerging as one of the nascent “nuclear” plays to provide fuel for the AI energy renaissance. It appears that Trump’s kids read what we wrote.

This morning, just before the open, ASP Isotopes (ASPI) announced a private placement for convertible notes of their advanced materials subsidiary Quantum Leap Energy (QLE), in which investors would be none other than the Trump boys.

Eric and Donald Jr participated in the private placement led by American Ventures LLC (a fund run by Dominari Holdings CEO Soo Yu which has done work with the Trumps before) and ASPI for over $60 million of convertible notes for QLE. The subsidiary is due to be spun out of ASPI by the end of the year. An update on official dates is expected to be provided in the earnings report coming up on November 18th.

QLE is developing the technology for enriching select isotopes with lasers, said to be significantly more efficient and cheaper than current centrifuge enrichment technology. In particular, the company looks to enrich uranium up to just below the 20% U-235 threshold to provide advanced reactors with the High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) needed to fuel those designs. QLE recently signed an agreement to develop advanced materials and HALEU enrichment facilities at the Fermi project in Texas.

As regular readers know, the current supply of HALEU outside of Russia is extremely limited – not dissimilar to the throttled rare earth supply-chains that are plaguing the Trump admin – and driving increased pressure for the US government to assist in pushing domestic capacity expansion.

This news of Trump’s children involvement in the company is even more interesting considering the recent acquisition of the voting rights for Sky Builders was revealed to also involve Eric and Donald Jr. American Ventures LLC joined ASPI in purchasing the majority voting rights in the company with the stated intention of using SKBL to purchase a critical materials company to be wholly-owned by QLE. Through their ownership and involvement in Dominari Holdings, the Trump boys were also involved in the purchase via American Ventures.

The news of the Trump family’s involvement sent the stock of ASPI sharply higher, reversing what was poised to be a big drop this morning.

A federal judge has restricted the federal government’s use of tear gas and other types of anti-riot measures in Chicago.

On Thursday, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said during a hearing that government witnesses’ claims of violence at protests in Chicago were not credible, citing several occasions where she said video recordings contradicted immigration officials’ accounts about what happened.

“The government would have people believe instead that the Chicagoland area is in a visehold of violence, ransacked by rioters, and attacked by agitators,” she said.

“That simply is untrue.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a statement from a spokesperson on the ruling described protesters in the city as “rioters, gangbangers and terrorists” who pose a threat to federal agents.

“Despite these real dangers, our law enforcement shows incredible restraint in exhausting all options before force is escalated,” the DHS spokesperson said, noting that the government would appeal the decision.

The spokesperson described the injunction as “an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers.”

As Joseph Lord reports for The Epoch Times, Ellis has seen at least one of her earlier rulings related to immigration enforcement in the city overruled, and this latest ruling could face similar challenges if the judge is found to have overstepped her authority by an appellate court. If it isn’t overturned in a higher court, Ellis’s ruling will stay in effect as proceedings related to this issue move forward.

The court hearing comes amid escalating showdowns between protestors opposed to the administration’s immigration enforcement operations and federal agents in America’s third-largest city.

For weeks, protestors and civil liberties groups have alleged that tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have become increasingly aggressive in the city.

Ellis agreed with these allegations in her ruling, finding that the government’s use of force in several cases wasn’t merited by the circumstances on the ground.

Court Order

Ellis ordered the federal government to restrict the use of anti-riot measures against peaceful protestors and members of the press.

The preliminary injunction granted by Ellis restricts agents from using items such as tear gas and pepper balls, “unless such force is objectively necessary” to prevent “an immediate threat.”

It also bars agents from using physical force, including shoving, against protestors and journalists, and requires agents to give two verbal warnings before using riot control weapons.

The order comes after days of testimony about Chicagoans’ encounters with federal agents.

During hours of proceedings on Wednesday, Ellis heard testimony from multiple protestors, journalists, and members of the clergy who said they had been subjected to tear gassing and pepper balls from federal agents during protests in the city.

Witnesses gave testimony about alleged violent encounters with federal agents outside an immigrant detention center in Broadview, Illinois, and on Chicago’s residential streets.

Several people testified that they had had guns pointed at their heads while filming agents, while one pastor testified that he had been struck in the face by a pepper ball while praying.

Ellis granted the preliminary injunction in response to a request brought by some of those affected to restrict the use of federal force against them.

First Amendment

The plaintiffs argued that using excessive force at protests could make individuals less inclined to exercise their rights out of fear of consequences or reprisal.

In her decision, Ellis ruled that there was merit to the plaintiffs’ claims that the government’s conduct could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, saying that her order would prevent this.

Federal agents’ use of force, including anti-riot measures, has historically been guided by broad standard requiring the force to be “objectively reasonable,” a standard laid out in the 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor.

This entails a general requirement to use as little force as possible and respect constitutional rights, while responding proportionately to legitimate threats.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Sarmad Khojasteh argued during the hearing that in every instance, federal agents were justified in their use of force, and told the court that protestors’ actions did not constitute protected First Amendment activity.

Ellis said that in several cases, federal agents had misrepresented events, presenting a different story than events captured on video, in order to justify an escalation of force.

Ellis said during the hearing that Gregory Bovino—the Border Patrol commander-at-large spearheading the administration’s immigration enforcement effort in the city—claimed that he had been hit with a rock prior to throwing tear gas, but that “Video evidence ultimately disproved this.”

According to the judge, Bovino admitted during a deposition that he was struck after tear gas had been dispersed.

Attorneys for the government responded that Bovino has started wearing a body camera since this incident took place, but was not equipped with one at the time. As part of her order, Ellis directed immigration agents to wear body cameras and clearly present their badges or identification.

A similar order was issued by Ellis last month in a temporary restraining order, which expired on Nov. 6.