President Donald Trump is set to host Syria’s self-appointed interim leader later this month for talks in Washington, marking the first ever visit by a Syrian head of state to the US capitol. Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who once fought alongside foreign fighters while killing American soldiers in Iraq, will enjoy his red carpet reception in Washington on November 10.

This will also mark the first time a former ISIS member will be hosted in the Oval Office, an absurdity which would have been hard to believe a mere decade ago. But the US-Saudi-Israel axis reached its regime change goal in Damascus, which overthrew the secular Arab nationalist leader Bashar al-Assad, which resulted in the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) taking over.

The HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who was even earlier this year still on the US terrorism list, quickly reverted to his birth name of Ahmed al-Sharaa. The US had promptly removed the $10 million bounty on his head just before President Trump met with him in Riyadh last May.

“President Ahmed al-Sharaa will be at the White House at the start of November,” Syria’s foreign minister said in speech in Bahrain. “Of course, this is a historic visit. It is the first visit by a Syrian president to the White House in more than 80 years.”

“There will be many issues on the table, starting with the lifting of sanctions and opening of a new chapter between the United States and Syria. We want to establish a very strong partnership between the two countries.”

One area of proposed cooperation is in fighting terrorism, ironically enough, and the US and Syria under Jolani are expected to sign an agreement joining a US-led international coalition against ISIS during the visit, which is somewhat laughable given ISIS patches have recently been seen among HTS ranks.

A 2024 CNN article admitted the following:

Despite attempts to distance his group from extremist organizations, the United States still designated his new group a terror organization and targeted members of HTS who once fought for Al Qaeda, proving his rebranding attempts a failure.

And NBC too underscored Jolani’s ISIS pedigree soon after he ousted Assad in December 2024:

Born in Syria in 1982, he joined other foreign fighters in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and was detained by the American military, according to The Associated Press.

When Syria’s vicious civil war erupted in 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), sent Jolani to Syria to establish the Al-Nusra Front, a branch of Al Qaeda.

Their conflict escalated two years later. Jolani rejected Baghdadi’s calls to dissolve the Nusra Front and merge it with ISI to form ISIS. Instead, he pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, which later disassociated itself from ISIS. The Nusra Front then became Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate and later battled ISIS for supremacy in the battle against Assad.

NATO PR flaks are selling us a Hollywood transformation-of-character Scrooge tale about Jolani, the brutal ex-Al Qaeda sectarian who slaughtered minorities by the village-full. Like Scrooge on Xmas day, Jolani had an epiphany, and now he embraces all of your liberal DEI values! pic.twitter.com/X6417Xkj5T

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) December 4, 2024

His aforementioned ruling Islamist faction HTS has since taking control in Damascus been conducting sectarian attacks on ethno-religious minorities in Syria. Thousands of Alawites, Druze, and Christians have been killed and/or driven from their homes.

All the while, Sharraa has sought to claim before international cameras that he’ll ensure equality for non-Muslims as well as women, but the actions of his HTS gangs are the opposite.

Authored by J.D. Hester via AntiWar.com,

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the arm of Israel’s foreign propaganda mission in the United States, recently made an unprecedented mission to the island of Taiwan. At the 2025 Minyan Mission, President Lai Ching-te prostrated himself to the lobby by comparing Israel and Taiwan to the “spirit of David against Goliath in standing up to authoritarian coercion.”

In reality, the governments of Israel and Taiwan both have a long history of acting more like Goliath than David. They are also similar in the sense that they are both instruments of the American empire, a costly endeavor robbing Americans of economic and political freedom. To understand why Taiwan is trying to frame itself in the minds of American elites as the “Israel of Asia,” it is important to recognize why Israel and the United States became so codependent to begin with.

The United States and Israel have collaborated since the founding of the state of Israel. The relationship between both countries became one of convenience during the Cold War as the Soviet Union generally favored the Arab nations in the region over Israel. Evangelical Americans, prominent in the government at all levels, also see Israel as religiously significant. After the Cold War, the United States and Israel continued to collaborate with both having a common enemy in numerous Muslim states. However, Israel also began an influence campaign in the United States to ensure that they would always have the support of the world’s foremost superpower.

Domestically, AIPAC and other groups were able to foster bipartisan support for the state of Israel via lobbying. In exchange for funding both Republicans and Democrats, American politicians who receive funding from the Israel lobby are expected to maintain a pro-Israel position. AIPAC boasts about its power with the organization proudly supporting “361 pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates in 2024 with more than $53 million in direct support through AIPAC.” The organization also boasts a 96% election rate and defeated 24 candidates who they stated would have “undermined” US-Israel relations. In total, Israel has received $300 billion in aid adjusted for inflation due largely to its lobbying efforts. Understandably, Taiwan would also want similar support from the US to bolster its geopolitical aims.

Numerous researchers have compared the efforts of the Taiwan lobby to that of the pro-Israel lobby in terms of “composition, aspirations, and operations.” Both Israel and Taiwan use the narrative of an “existential threat” to garner support from the United States. While Israel claims Iran poses a major threat to the security of the nation, Taiwan claims that China poses a similar threat.

A 2021 report found that, in 2019, $4.97 million was spent on agents working for the Taiwan lobby. With this funding, pro-Taiwan organizations contacted nearly 90% of Congress. The lobby directly spent $156,794 on individual campaign contributions that year. Most damningly, twice the lobby contributed money to congresspeople on the same day they met with these lobby agents. Like the Israel lobby, the Taiwan lobby also invites congresspeople on free trips, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. While the Taiwan lobby might not have as much power as the Israel lobby, it has nevertheless secured meaningful support from the US government because of its efforts.

Throughout the years, the United States has sold over $50 billion in arms and related services to the Taiwanese government. However, in fiscal year 2024, the US has also given the Indo-Pacific region $2 billion in free military aid with much of this aid presumably going to Taiwan. Like Israel, Taiwan also conducts joint military training with the US.

This level of cooperation between Taiwan and the US is extremely dangerous. If the US got involved in a hypothetical Chinese invasion on the side of Taiwan, we could risk another Russia-Ukraine war or even outright nuclear war. Neither is in the interests of US taxpayers who already give their dollars to foreign governments like Israel for nothing in return except for more lengthy wars. Foreign aid only serves to drain the resources of our government and entangle us in conflicts we have no business being involved in.

Israel and Taiwan are “Goliaths” in their neighborhoods of the world due to support from the United States. In contrast, the “Davids” are the people of the United States robbed by foreign powers and groups, like the Palestinians, slaughtered by Washington-funded proxies. Until the US is truly free from the influence of foreign lobbyists and the self-imposed responsibility of policing the globe, the American people will never be free. Those who claim to be non-interventionists or “America First” should oppose making Taiwan the Israel of the South China Sea.

As we’ve for many months been documenting, the Western mainstream media continues the trend of turning on Ukraine, and on President Zelensky in particular, now that it’s clear that ‘victory’ against Russia will not be a reality. It seems that every time Ukraine’s military suffers major setback and defeat at a strategic location in the east – as is again unfolding currently – the unusually ‘negative’ MSM articles suddenly appear.

It wasn’t very long ago, and especially during the opening couple years of war, the MSM treated any criticisms of Zelensky or the Ukrainian Army as totally off-limits. This was the comically absurd era of concert halls in Europe canceling famous classical Russian ballads, or op-eds calling for reading courses to ban Dostoevsky. But fast-forward to late 2025 and Politico is out with a story entitled The dark side of Zelenskyy’s rule.

The story documents how Ukrainian society, and especially what’s left of the ‘accepted opposition’ (after long ago Zelensky banned all opposition political parties deemed too ‘pro-Russian’ in a country where some one-third of the population has Russian as their first language) is slowly turning on the US/EU-backed leader.

Discontent has boiled to the public surface on a variety of issues of late including harsh recruitment policies which has seen officers throw unsuspecting men on the street into vans, and then there’s Zelensky’s personal efforts which sought to ban top corruption investigative institutions (later reversed after severe censure from the public and Western countries), and most recently there’s the political persecution of Zelensky’s enemies. 

Execution of the war itself has also been a source of immense controversy, especially after in early 2024 President Zelensky sacked Ukraine’s top general, who was also very popular among military ranks – Valery Zaluzhny – in what marked the biggest shakeup of the country’s military leadership since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion.  Zaluzhny was shipped off to be ambassador to the United Kingdom, and some say he might be groomed by the West to eventually replace Zelensky.

The NY Times has recently observed this proved a disaster, as “Ukraine was successful the first year of the war because its army fought differently. Once Zelensky replaced Zaluzhny with Syrsky last year, it has turned into a war of a small Soviet army against a big Soviet army, with predictable consequences.” Leadership became “mired in Soviet-decision making” and forces were no longer nimble or effective, and needless losses mounted.

But Politico, now in documenting more of the ‘dark side of Zelensky’ highlights the case of another popular Ukrainian figure under fire by the Zelensky government:

As Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, then head of Ukraine’s state-owned national power company Ukrenergo, was scrambling to keep the lights on.

Somehow, he succeeded and continued to do so every year, earning the respect of energy executives worldwide by ensuring the country was able to withstand Russian missile and drone strikes on its power grid and avoid catastrophic blackouts — until he was abruptly forced to resign in 2024, that is.

Kudrytskyi’s dismissal was decried by many in the energy industry and also prompted alarm in Brussels. At the time, Kudrytskyi told POLITICO he was the victim of the relentless centralization of authority that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his powerful head of office Andriy Yermak often pursue. He said he feared “corrupt individuals” would end up taking over the state-owned company.

According to his supporters, it is that kind of talk — and his refusal to remain silent — that explains why Kudrytskyi ended up in a glass-enclosed cubicle in a downtown Kyiv courtroom last week, where he was arraigned on embezzlement charges.

In the background, Zelensky’s motives have further increasingly come under scrutiny for his refusal to hold elections, declaring that martial law policy will remain in effect so long as the war drags on.

In the meantime he’s been able to amass unprecedented power for himself, while wielding a bludgeon against his internal enemies in Kiev. Politico continues, using word choice which earlier in the conflict no mainstream media account of the Ukrainian political landscape would dare employ:

Others who have received the same treatment include Zelenskyy’s predecessor in office, Petro Poroshenko, who was sanctioned and arraigned on corruption charges this year — a move that could prevent him from standing in a future election. Sanctions have frequently been threatened or used against opponents, effectively freezing assets and blocking the sanctioned person from conducting any financial transactions, including using credit cards or accessing bank accounts.

Poroshenko has since accused Zelenskyy of creeping “authoritarianism,” and seeking to “remove any competitor from the political landscape.”

While we and a few others have long been documenting such ‘creeping authoritarianism’ – Western press has by and large ignored these loud statements from frustrated Ukrainian officials who have been sidelined. There’s been a media atmosphere which views these narratives with suspicion and as too Russian-sympathetic, even when it is (awkwardly) top Ukrainians themselves saying it.

As for Kudrytskyi, and his case wherein state prosecutors claim he personally enriched himself while overseeing the country’s energy company, Politico cites official after official who insists there’s no evidence – and indeed such has never been presented publicly either: 

Kaleniuk was in the courtroom for Kudrytskyi’s two-hour arraignment, and echoes the former energy boss’s claim that the prosecution is “political.” According to Kaleniuk, the case doesn’t make any legal sense, and she said it all sounded “even stranger” as the prosecutor detailed the charges against Kudrytskyi: “He failed to show that he had materially benefited in any way” from an infrastructure contract that, in the end, wasn’t completed, she explained.

The case in question is related to a contract Kudrytskyi authorized seven years ago as Ukrenergo’s then-deputy director for investments. But the subcontractor didn’t even begin work on the assigned infrastructure improvements, and Ukrenergo was able to claw back an advance payment that was made.

His firing long ago had actually prompted resignations from two independent members of the company’s supervisory board, and the whole saga was met with rare criticism in pro-Kiev media outlets within Ukraine at the time.

Meanwhile, another under-acknowledged reality in Ukraine is that there’s a sizeable silent minority (or even majority, perhaps) of the common populace who wants to see this tragic war end in any way possible, even if that means ceding the Russian-speaking territories in the Donbass and Crimea, something which Zelensky and his hawkish backers in Europe consistently refuse as a possibility. These common voices too have been silenced and sidelined in Zelensky’s Ukraine.

Authored by Greg Collard via Racket News,

The House Oversight Committee’s report, “The Biden Autopen Presidency,” can be broken down into two basic parts:

1. Biden’s inner circle — or “politburo,” as the report characterizes it — worked like the two guys in Weekend at Bernie’s, constantly propping up the president to hide his declining cognitive condition from the public.

2. As a result, Biden was often not in charge, thus the need for the administration to use the autopen multiple times.

The report reaches a conclusion that reads like a judicial ruling: Absent evidence that Biden made executive decisions, “the Committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void.” The report continues:

Barring evidence of executive actions taken during the Biden presidency showing that President Biden indeed took a particular executive action, the Committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void. The validity of the executive actions allegedly approved and signed (largely by autopen) by President Biden must be reviewed to determine whether legal action is necessary to ameliorate consequences of any illegitimate pardons granted, or executive actions implemented, throughout the Biden Autopen Presidency. The Committee finds numerous executive actions—particularly clemency actions—taken during the Biden Administration were illegitimate.

Attorney General Pam Bondi responded the morning the report was released, saying her team was reviewing Biden’s use of the autopen for pardons.

The Oversight Committee’s report focuses on “executive actions,” particularly Biden’s last-minute pre-emptive pardons of family members and characters such as Anthony Fauci.

A federal appeals court said in a 2024 ruling that a pardon or commutation doesn’t require a president’s signature as long as it can be demonstrated that the president made the decision. The Oversight Committee’s report tries to make the case that proof of Biden’s executive actions is missing.

The Biden White House’s executive decision-making procedures were so lax that the chain of custody for a given decision is difficult or impossible to establish. Documents that were used to predicate executive actions should be sufficiently traceable to ensure they reflect the will of the president. Instead, the Biden White House’s flimsy procedure appears to have been extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Interestingly, the committee’s report does not address legislation that was signed by autopen, even though the U.S. Constitution says presidents “shall” sign bills they approve. Still, courts have not ruled whether it’s legal to sign legislation with an autopen. In 2011, President Obama became the first president to “sign” legislation by autopen. The administration relied on a 2005 Justice Department opinion for its legal justification.

You can read more about that opinion below as part of Racket News’ timeline of events, controversies and key documents concerning the autopen.

March 27, 1929

Acting Solicitor General Alfred Wheat writes a memorandum that says presidential pardons do not require an “autograph,” but that “custom and propriety require that the pardoned man be given some token to show that he has been pardoned.”

July 7, 2005

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issue an opinion that concludes:

The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.”

Although the Justice Department researched the topic at the request of the White House, President Bush never signed legislation with the autopen.

May 26, 2011

President Obama becomes the first president to sign legislation with the autopen. The president was in Deauville, France, for the G8 Summit while Congress voted to extend provisions in the Patriot Act. They would have expired without his immediate signature.

May 27, 2011

Georgia Congressman Tom Graves expresses concerns about the autopen in a letter to Obama. Graves notes the U.S. Constitution says the president “shall” sign legislation he approves, and seeks clarity that Obama was fully informed of what he had the autopen sign.

Mr. President, I write to request your confirmation that S. 990, as passed by Congress, was presented to you prior to the autopen signing, as well as a detailed, written explanation of your Constitutional authority to assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed by Congress into law.

Graves follows up in a June 17, 2011 letter to Obama that asks him to re-sign the legislation with his real signature. This time, 20 Republican colleagues also sign the letter.

January 2, 2013

The Obama administration for the second time uses an autopen to sign legislation while the president is on vacation in Hawaii. The autopen was used to sign high-profile “fiscal cliff” legislation to avoid spending cuts that would have taken effect if tax breaks were not extended.

February 13, 2024

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals references the 1929 Wheat memo in a ruling that says pardons don’t require a president’s signature as long as it’s clear the president made the clemency decision.

“…nothing in the Constitution restricts the President’s exercise of the clemency power to commutations that have been rendered through a documented writing…But such a clemency warrant or, indeed, any writing, is not required for the President to exercise this authority under the Constitution. Hypothetically, the President could proclaim at a press conference in the Rose Garden that he has pardoned a particular individual, and that would be a valid act…even absent a writing.”

March 14-17, 2025

President Trump posts on Truth Social that whomever controlled the autopen was the real president during the Biden Administration. He also declares the Biden’s pardons are “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT” because they were signed by an autopen.

March 17, 2025

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” determines that 32 of Biden’s 51 clemency warrants (affecting 4,245 people) were signed by two different autopen signatures. This finding was cited in the House Oversight Committee’s report.

The Oversight Project also argues the 2005 legal opinion on the autopen was wrong, and “the Biden Administration’s apparent rampant use of the autopen reveals the very reason that OLC’s 2005 Opinion is erroneous at its core. Once the requirement for a wet signature is dispensed with, an important safeguard against fraud is removed, and an historical lawless Administration combined with a cognitively impaired President leads to the exact situation we are in—no one can be sure what actions President Biden actually authorized.”

June 4, 2025

Trump writes a memo that directs his White House counsel to work with the Attorney General to investigate Biden’s use of the autopen. From the memo:

Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name.

A formal report in response to this directive has not been released.

July 13, 2025

Biden defends his administration’s use of the autopen, telling the New York Times that “I made every decision” in regard to the pardons and commutations he made at the end of his term. The Times also posted excerpts of its 10-minute phone interview with him.

September 24, 2025

A new display of presidential portraits debuts outside the West Wing, but in place of Biden’s face is a framed picture of an autopen signing Biden’s name.

October 28, 2025

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee release a 91-page report that alleges Biden’s “loyal senior staff” engaged in a cover-up of his declining health and “numerous instances in which the president’s approval for an executive action or the chief of staff’s approval of signature by autopen was not memorialized.”

The report includes testimony of a Biden administration official, Anthony Bernal, who served as an assistant to the president and as chief of staff to first lady Jill Biden.

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Watch the moment Anthony Bernal takes the 5th at our deposition today.

• Did you advise President Biden to pardon Hunter?
– FIFTH!

• Was President Biden fit to exercise the duties of President?
– FIFTH!

• Did any unelected official or family member execute… pic.twitter.com/NmPQLwXrnl

— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) July 16, 2025

In the video above, Bernal is asked if “any unelected official or family member of President Joe Biden execute[d] the duties of the Presidency?”

Bernal answers by exercising his Fifth Amendment rights.

Meanwhile Democrats on the Oversight Committee release a 14-page rebuttal. That report gives examples of Biden Administration officials testifying that Biden “managed complex policy discussions.”

Moreover, the autopen “scandal” manufactured by Chairman Comer and House Republicans proved to be nothing more than a feeble attempt to attack the legitimacy of President Biden’s policies—a pretext to invalidate executive actions by President Biden, including valid pardons issued pursuant to his constitutional authority. After extensive witness interviews and numerous media appearances, the Majority has produced no credible evidence to substantiate his assertions, demonstrating once again his preference for partisanship over genuine oversight.

Racket News is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The White House on Saturday unveiled a comprehensive breakdown of the U.S.-China trade and economic deal reached by President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping while on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit last week. 

The deal restores stability to global markets, strengthens U.S. industry, and marks a geopolitical win for Washington, according to the White House. 

Here are the key commitments:

• Fentanyl Crackdown: Halt exports of chemical precursors used to make fentanyl and tighten global export controls on designated substances.

• Critical Minerals: Suspend and effectively eliminate new and existing export controls on rare earths, gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite, allowing unrestricted global supply to U.S. industries.

• Trade Retaliation Rollback: Remove all tariffs and non-tariff countermeasures imposed since March 2025, including those targeting U.S. agriculture and technology firms.

• Agricultural Purchases: Commit to buy 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by year-end, and 25 MMT annually through 2028, alongside renewed imports of sorghum and hardwood logs.

• Semiconductor Resolution: Ensure Nexperia’s China facilities can resume exporting legacy automotive chips, easing global supply chain strain.

• Industrial Policy Reversal: Terminate investigations targeting U.S. semiconductor and logistics firms and lift sanctions on maritime and shipping entities.

• Tariff Exemptions Extended: Keep U.S. import exclusions active through 2026, signaling policy de-escalation.

Focusing on the semiconductor resolution commitment, the standoff between the EU, U.S., and China over Netherlands-based Nexperia appears to have resolved, one that could’ve thrown the global auto supply chain into total dysfunction. 

Recall that in October, the Dutch government seized control of Nexperia, owned by China’s Wingtech Technology, over national security concerns. Beijing retaliated by blocking Nexperia’s exports from China, disrupting European and some Asian auto supply chains. 

Disruptions:

• VW Halts Golf Production In Wolfsburg As Chip Shortage Worsens

• Nexperia-Linked Chip Shortages Ripple Through Global Auto Supply Chain, From Germany To Japan

For now, trade tensions between the U.S. and China have subsided. In fact, the recent tit-for-tat measures were about each side gaining leverage before Trump and Xi sat down at the negotiating table last week. This resolution on multiple fronts, including the Nexperia chip dispute, is a big sigh of relief.

Authored by Arjun Singh via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Several major cities in the United States will vote in elections for their mayors on Nov. 4. Many of the cities are heavily populated by Democratic voters, and races for their mayoral offices involve contests between factions within the party.

The results of these elections will determine the local policies of these cities for the next four years, which directly affect the lives of nearly 10 million Americans.

Below, The Epoch Times lists these elections, the primary candidates running, and the promises they have made to voters.

New York City

The mayor of New York City is one of America’s oldest and most famous political offices, often likened to being the “second toughest job in America” after the President of the United States. The incumbent leads the largest city in the country, with a population of 8.4 million people, as well as one of the richest and most visible cities in the world, giving the official an international reputation.

The leading candidate, according to present polls, is Democratic nominee state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani has taken New York politics by storm after his upset victory in the Democratic primary election on June 24. The 34-year-old is a naturalized U.S. citizen of Indian descent, originally from Uganda, and describes himself as a democratic socialist and member of the Democratic Party’s left wing.

Mamdani’s chief campaign promise is to freeze residential rents in New York City’s rent-stabilized housing, where two million people currently reside. The mayor appoints members of the Rent Guidelines Board, which has the power to issue such a freeze. Additionally, he has promised to make public buses free and raise taxes on wealthy New York residents, though both of these will require action by the government of the State of New York.

Mamdani’s main opponent is the state’s former governor, Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is the scion of a political family and served as governor, the same office held by his father, for 10 years until 2021, when he resigned amid sexual harassment allegations. He denied wrongdoing, and criminal charges against him were later dropped. He previously ran in the Democratic primary and was leading for many months.

Now, Cuomo is running as an independent candidate with the endorsement of New York’s incumbent mayor, Eric Adams, a Democrat, who ended his own independent reelection campaign amid low support. Cuomo has criticized Mamdani as too left-leaning and has promised to increase public safety. The former governor also highlighted that he has more political experience than Mamdani, having served in several federal and state offices since 1993.

Recent polling puts Mamdani 16 percentage points ahead of Cuomo. Unlike the primary, the general election does not use ranked-choice voting, and present polling indicates that Mamdani would win outright.

The third candidate, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, is the founder of the Guardian Angels, a public safety volunteer group, and a longtime radio host in New York City who has run for office previously.

Given New York’s overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive lean, it is highly unlikely that Sliwa will win. However, the Republican has vowed to stay in the race, despite mounting calls urging him to quit to boost Cuomo’s chances, just days before early voting begins.

“Let’s be very clear: I am not dropping out—under no circumstances,” Sliwa told reporters on Tuesday outside a Manhattan subway station. “I’ve already been offered money to drop out, I said no.”

He has emphasized his grassroots ties and urged New Yorkers to vote for a candidate who represents ordinary residents rather than wealthy interests.

Minneapolis

In Minnesota’s largest city, a highly competitive race has emerged for the mayoralty. The incumbent mayor, Jacob Frey, a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party, is seeking reelection to a third term. He is being challenged by state Sen. Omar Fateh (DFL), a member of Minneapolis’s large Somali community, and DeWayne Davis, the Chaplain of the Minnesota Senate.

Fateh’s challenge has attracted attention for his youth and his progressive political views, drawing comparisons to Mamdani. He has been endorsed by U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali-American, as well as left-wing groups such as the Sunrise Movement and Our Revolution, the latter being backed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Frey, meanwhile, has been endorsed by more establishment figures in Democratic-Farmer-Labor politics, such as Gov. Tim Walz and U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

A poll sponsored by a group supporting Fateh showed that Frey is leading the field with 34 percent support. However, Minneapolis uses ranked-choice voting, meaning that voters may rank their preferences on a ballot, and votes will be apportioned in rounds. Voters can rank their top three candidates, and those with low vote totals on the first round will be eliminated, with their voters’ second preferences receiving their votes. The process will continue until one candidate has 50 percent support.

Cincinnati

The city of Cincinnati, which borders Kentucky along the Ohio River, is holding another highly charged mayoral contest with big names involved.

The incumbent, Aftab Pureval, is seeking reelection to a second term and is running against Cory Bowman, the half-brother of Vice President JD Vance.

The mayoral race is nominally nonpartisan, though Pureval and Bowman have been endorsed by the city’s Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Vance has endorsed and spoken in favor of his half-brother’s candidacy.

“Hey Cincinnati! My brother Cory Bowman is running for mayor and is on the ballot today for the primary. He’s a good guy with a heart for serving his community. Get out there and vote for him!” Vance wrote on X on May 6.

Cincinnati has traditionally voted for Democratic-backed candidates for mayor.

Atlanta

Atlanta is the capital and largest city in Georgia, as well as one of the largest cities in the southern United States, and its mayoral race is competitive.

Incumbent Mayor Andre Dickens is seeking reelection to a second term. He is running against three minor candidates: Helmut Domagalski, a LGBTQ-focused activist, former Atlanta Police Officer Kalema Jackson, and Eddie Meredith, a community organizer.

There is no major polling on the race, though it is widely expected that Dickens will win reelection.

The Metropolitan Atlanta area is highly significant in U.S. presidential politics, for the city center’s heavy Democratic lean counterbalances the rest of the state’s conservative and Republican preference. The suburban areas around Atlanta, thus, have been critical battlegrounds for presidential candidates since 2016.

Bill Pan contributed to this report.

Saturday evening has seen a somewhat unexpected threat of US military intervention in West Africa from President Trump, as he has threatened Nigeria with potential direct action.

He has said the United States will mull cutting off aid completely over government’s of failing to protect Christians. But more importantly and ominously he affirmed on Truth Social that he’s ordered the Pentagon “to prepare for possible action” to wipe out “Islamic Terrorists” in the country.

“If we attack,” he stated, “it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!” (one wonders why he never issued similar statements over Syrian Christians).

He already the day prior said Nigeria will be labeled a country of particular concern, as it’s “engaged in severe violations of religious freedom.”

He had further said Friday that “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria” – following allegations from several US lawmakers and Evangelical leaders that thousands of Christians are poised to be wiped out by Islamist forces – something which Nigeria has rejected.

But President Bola Ahmed Tinubu roundly rejected the characterizations, saying Saturday that Nigeria “as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians.”

Boko Haram is one of the terror groups long active in the country of some 220 million, and it has terrorized Christians, but also Muslims deemed ‘apostate’ for not following the group’s hardline beliefs.

The US military has long been active in another African country of late – Somalia – conducing drone warfare against various Islamist groups and warlords.

Hegseth quickly says the military is at the ready, even with the unprecedented build-up off Venezulea: “The Department of War is preparing for action.”

Yes sir.

The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately. The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. pic.twitter.com/C0v9RHGoS1

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) November 1, 2025

But like with Somalia, the Pentagon would likely have limited success in vast Nigeria, also given radical groups tend to be dispersed throughout the country, and among the population – and so there is no ‘front line’ in such a ‘counter-terror’ conflict, making total eradication of such groups nearly impossible.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

ProSec or Production for Security

I know National Production for National Security (or ProSec) isn’t as catchy as Mag 7 or BRICs, but while we wait for someone to come up with a better way to describe the phenomenon that is developing, we will continue to use that.
From prior reports:

• ProSec – Investing in a Pre-War World. How a “Pre-War” mentality helps – urgency and sacrifice, in the advancement of Production for Security. The latest China Trade Deal sets in motion a 1-year window for the U.S. to be in a better position on processed/refined rare earths and critical minerals, a key element of ProSec.

• ProSec as a Global Philosophy. Production for Security goes beyond being a “trade.” It is a way of thinking that will supplant ESG as a driving force behind decisions for governments, corporations, and asset managers. We explore ProSec portfolio construction, and are continuing efforts on that front. With that in mind, this article hit the tape on Friday – An ETF to Mimic Government Investments. It has the advantage of being relatively easy to implement, but I think investment opportunities that are more encompassing of the full power of ProSec will become available.
• We were able to discuss ProSec, Electricity, and More, on October 31st on Bloomberg TV (the Academy Securities segment starts at the 3:50 mark).

Three “Academy” topics that deserve a bit of extra attention. These topics have been part of our published work for some time, and certainly crop up in most discussions, but we wanted to highlight them. There is a risk, we think, that they are “too much in the background” and want to bring them to the forefront.

• South and Central America. We could have gone with “Monroe Doctrine on Steroids” but that seemed a bit “crass” even by T-Report standards. The first place that Secretary of State Marco Rubio went was the Panama Canal. That was (and is) a major signal of a shift in focus on foreign policy (and I’m willing to bet that by the end of 2026, it will have a different name). The actions in and around Venezuela and Colombia are a distinct departure from actions that the U.S. was willing to do in the region. The support of Argentina’s currency (and thereby, its leader) ahead of the election has paid off and should do a lot to bring Argentina closer to the U.S. (China has made massive inroads into Argentina in the prior decade or so). The admin is focused on South and Central America – we need to be too.
• The “war” on drugs. I cannot remember the first time I heard the term “war on drugs.” I didn’t even bother to look it up, as that is largely irrelevant (and I think we all know how ineffectual the war on drugs has been – if fentanyl is any indication). We are now moving to an “actual war” on drugs. We don’t mean to be flippant on the subject, but certainly what we are doing around Venezuela is the closest we’ve seen to a “real” war on drugs in our lifetime. We can look at other actions the admin has taken around drugs (and criminals) and fit this into our narrative. Look for the Mexican Cartels to be targeted down the road. Politically, it is easier to set “new boundaries” in the war on drugs off the coast of Venezuela, than it is to set those boundaries in and around Mexico. However, once the new “rules of engagement” have been established, look for opportunities to apply them elsewhere. It seems like it should be in Mexico’s interest to work with the U.S. government to crack down on cartels. It would help both countries in many ways. The war on drugs is “finally” a real war (whether everyone likes it or not, or agrees with the methods being implemented).
• Streamlining Procurement. On November 7th, Secretary Hegseth is expected to outline a new Military Acquisition Process. This is something that the Geopolitical Intelligence Group has discussed (almost) ad nauseum. I say almost, because how can something so important and necessary be “sickening.” From annual budgets set years in advance, to ongoing spending on equipment or systems that either didn’t deliver what was expected, or aren’t necessary to today’s strategies (or versus current threats). DARPA has done an amazing job of developing new technologies, but the military has had only limited success in scaling up those technologies quickly. One of my favorite stories is that no one has ever made general/flag officer (General or Admiral) directly while in DARPA. They typically have to move to a major “command” to move up the ranks. This could all be changing rapidly – given what we are seeing in drones in Russia/Ukraine and hypersonics (Russia and China), and the change cannot happen fast enough. Even on the more “mundane” side of things – like relatively simple artillery shells, we have exposed that we are not well equipped to produce as many as we might need. Spending on Space, which much to the chagrin of General (ret.) Deptula hasn’t received the attention it deserves on the defense side of things – is likely to change. As one of the biggest “wallets” in the entire world, a shift in spending patterns here creates immense opportunities.
  • While not quite “procurement” just look at what the Army has done in terms of opening up the ability to build nuclear facilities on their bases. Look at what they have done already to secure domestic resources.
  • Ship building (from surface drones, to larger attack ships) and the ability to repair and maintain our existing fleet will be its own category of growth.
  • While we merely scratched the surface on the military side of this, look for procurement to change across the government. Medicaid seems like another obvious candidate to be examined by this administration.
• We may not be able to overstate the importance of this change in mentality, and it has the potential to be so massive. Also, think back to ProSec – what are the odds that entities the government has invested in (on behalf of the taxpayers) don’t have an edge? Again, not arguing necessarily how right or wrong that is, but it seems like a logical conclusion.

I hope my excitement with these developments comes through in the writing (just as much as my “dismay” after the Liberation Day tariffs came through – which were backed away from rapidly).

Electricity

Time to have some fun. 

I wanted to go with “Let’s Get Nuclear, let me hear your atoms talk” but really struggled to make anything out of the lyrics for what is a song that seems to be able to sneak into your head quite easily. This might be a worse “guilty pleasure” than using Cher lyrics

So, let’s get back to Electricity.

I’m pretty sure we’ve used OMD before – the “Enola Gay.”

Anyone who hasn’t listened, at least once (and preferably on repeat) to “If You Leave” after a breakup has missed out on a big part of the healing process. If you haven’t, I don’t suggest you break up just to go through the catharsis with this song playing in the background, but I digress.

Given the band’s political leanings, I suspect there is some strong messaging, but I think it is interesting to just go through the lyrics of “Electricity” as written (my bold highlights).

Our one source of energy

The ultimate discovery

Electric blue for me

Never more to be free

Electricity

Nuclear and HEP

Carbon fuels from the sea

Wasted electricity

Our one source of energy

Electricity

All we need to live today

A gift for man to throw away

The chance to change has nearly gone

The alternative is only one

The final source of energy

Solar electricity

It is a bit “heavy” on solar, but certainly touches on the sea, fossil fuels, wasted energy, nuclear, and hydroelectric (I think HEP stands for hydroelectric power).

These lyrics are from 1979.

We have argued that the roadmap for what we need to do to win the AI/Data Center race on the energy side has been laid out by China – just look at not only their current power supply, but also what they have built and what they have in construction. But here it is, to some extent, laid out in a song from the 70’s.

Maybe, just maybe, this is where the Pre-War mentality serves us well.

The combination of two things will propel us forward:

• The profit opportunity from data centers and AI. The National Security elements of AI and Data Centers. All of which are predicated on having enough electricity to feed the beast.
• A Pre-War mentality, where fear of losing our place drives us to rapid development and deployment.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention General (ret.) Groen’s discussion on China’s “energetic” (pun intended) pursuit of fusion. They are working on what is likely a “containment” facility for fusion reactions night and day. We know they are working at night because the welding is visible from space.

We too are working on fusion.

The mentality that I see shaping the energy industry is:

• Every source of energy (and energy storage) will need to be implemented in the coming years (and decades) to service the energy demands. Even if chips become more efficient, the growth in demand seems set to increase energy usage, almost regardless of efficiency. Nuclear power is going to rise to prominence, but solar, despite the admin’s current stance, will also be part of the effort.
• A “realistic” multi-decade plan is starting to take shape. What can be built today? What can be built in 5 years? What will take 10 years? What technology will we have at our disposal in 10 years’ time that is now merely in the laboratory or experimentation phase?
• This need for energy will:
  • Bind us to our closest neighbors and allies who can help. That may not seem obvious today, but it seems inevitable.
  • Drive our foreign policy, not just with Russia/Ukraine, or Greenland (both already fixtures around rare earths and critical minerals), but also with Africa. A region far too long ignored. A region that could become a cauldron for global problems (apparently there are 60 million displaced citizens) or a huge engine of growth and opportunity.

Again, maybe my passion (or fervent hope that we finally shift from a vision to a plan on “sustainability” in the truest sense of the word) is showing through at uncomfortable levels, but I think it is that important.

Bottom Line

Hopefully more food for thought on why we see ProSec™ (Production for Security) becoming the dominant framework for countries, corporations, and asset managers across the globe.

• Rates. I see Fed funds (mid) heading to either 2.875% or 3.125% by the May 6th announcement at the latest. Maybe the data tells us something different when we get there, but this admin (and Bessent) seems to be guiding us there, and I’m not sure I’d fight that. That will lower 10s to under 4% as we head into next year (remember, my view is that if it doesn’t occur “naturally” or “organically” it will occur as part of a coordinated effort between Treasury and the Fed).
• Credit. At the margins, some issues, but all in all, solid, steady performance. Not to ever challenge Jamie Dimon, but I know of some luxury condos where cockroaches have been found, and no one bailed on those luxury condos since cockroaches can be contained and eliminated. Yes, there are some problems at the margin, but nothing to set off problems in overall credit markets. Again, I believe that more money is lost by being forced to sell credit than ever occurs from losses due to default. Orders of magnitude more, and I just don’t see evidence of forced selling in any meaningful size being triggered.
• Equities. Not sure what to make of mega caps moving double digits (up or down) after earnings, so I will stick to being massively overweight companies that benefit from ProSec™ both domestically and also abroad.

Eight OPEC+ countries on Sunday agreed to raise oil output in December by a modest 137,000 barrels per day but will pause further hikes in the first quarter of 2026, as the group balances its push for market share against signs of an emerging supply glut. 

The cartel member states led by Saudi Arabia agreed during a brief 14-minute video conference on Sunday to increase output by about 137,000 barrels a day next month as expected, matching increases scheduled for October and November (it is unlikely that even this modest increase will be fully implemented). However, the group also announced it will hold off on further increases during January to March. The proposal was raised to account for weaker seasonal demand, according to a delegate. The full 22-nation OPEC+ alliance is due to meet next on Nov. 30 to review production levels for 2026.

And this is the official press release: https://t.co/8u6uSp0faK #OOTT

— Amena Bakr (@Amena__Bakr) November 2, 2025

The new quotas for December and into Q1 2026 as as follows:

OPEC+ has been gradually reintroducing the return of 1.65 million barrels a day halted two years ago, after rapidly restarting another layer of production earlier this year. However, signs have been mounting that a long-awaited surplus is emerging, amid warnings of a bigger glut next year.

The meeting also takes place against a backdrop of increased pressure on Russia, the co-leader of the alliance, after the US sanctioned its two largest oil producers last month in a major escalation. While the move helped support prices after they dropped to a five-month low, one delegate said earlier that it’s too early for OPEC+ to gauge the overall market impact of the measures.

As Kpler’s Amena Bakr reminds us, at the start of 2025 the OPEC+ group decided NOT to add any barrels and the same is happening again in q1 2026, “So it’s just a repeat of market policy to avoid additional over supply when stocks normally build during this period.”

Meanwhile, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman heads later this month to Washington to meet President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called on OPEC to help bring down fuel prices.

Brent crude futures are down about 13% this year, settling below $65 a barrel on Friday. As well as the sanctions on Russia, they’ve also drawn support from a one-year truce on trade tariffs reached last week between Washington and Beijing.

OPEC+’s actual output increases have fallen significantly short of the advertised volumes, as some members offset earlier overproduction and others struggle to pump more, limiting the impact on the market. OPEC+ has repeatedly said that its decision to revive production this year, despite industry-wide warnings of a price slump, has been driven by “healthy market fundamentals” and low inventory levels. The resilience of prices for much of the year, the result of a massive campaign by China to top up its strategic reserves which amounts to over 500kb/d even as OPEC+ restored a 2.2 million-barrel supply tranche a year early, has validated its stance.

Yet there are increasing signs that, with demand in top consumer China cooling and supply across the Americas booming, the world market is now tipping into oversupply. Top trading houses like Trafigura Group say the excess has arrived, pointing to an accumulation of barrels on the world’s tanker fleet. 

The International Energy Agency in Paris predicts that world supplies could exceed demand this quarter by more 3 million barrels a day, and then balloon to an unprecedented glut next year, at least on paper. JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs forecast further price losses below $60 per barrel, although judging by their terrible track record, it likely means $100 oil is inevitable. 

The market downturn is also taking a toll on oil producers such as America’s shale drillers. While the US remains the biggest source of supply growth this year, it’s projected to stall in 2026, and shale executives have warned that as investment ebbs, the industry is hitting a “tipping point.”

Separately, Bloomberg notes that Saudi Arabia’s departure from years of effort to shore up crude prices is also having consequences for the kingdom itself. The country’s budget deficit deepened in the third quarter, and it has been forced to scale back spending on some economic transformation projects, including the futuristic city of Neom. 

Authored by Arthur Schaper via American Greatness,

The three remaining major candidates for mayor of New York City recently had their debate. It was contentious!

The only one who offered any serious solutions, instead of corruption or communism, was Curt Sliwa, the sole Republican. Sadly, Sliwa’s chances are nothing like what Republicans enjoyed in New York City before and after 9/11. From 1993 to 2001, New Yorkers had given Republican Rudy Giuliani the reins of the largest city in the country. He cracked down on crime, he brought back business, and he restored in New Yorkers a sense of pride for their city.

His successor, media mogul Michael Bloomberg, continued the Giuliani legacy of posh gentility, upscale standards, and moderate liberalism. He focused on crime reduction, prioritizing the best interests of all citizens. Bloomberg routinely rode the subway to work, proving that the stations were safe.

Everything went downhill with Democratic Bill de Blasio. For whatever reason, New Yorkers welcomed a communist to take the mayor’s mansion. And yes, he was a communist, a sympathizer of Central American drug lords and dictators. What were New Yorkers thinking? Not much, apparently, as they willfully endured de Blasio’s unprecedented permission of crime, corruption, and, of course, communism. And when you allow collectivism of any kind, you see crime and corruption come together in one big conniption of crap.

After Mayor Blah Blah, Gothamites seemed to have learned their lesson, and they elected a former police officer and state senator—and former Republican!—named Eric Adams. He put more emphasis on fighting crime, and he pushed back on some of the wokeness, although not enough. After all, he was still a Democrat when he served as mayor, and he still promoted a whole bunch of the Democrats’ major progressive talking points to stay in good graces with the generally liberal hoi polloi. While de Blasio was unkind and contemptible, Adams was personable but relatively incompetent. Of course, corruption issues dogged him, too, but New Yorkers were willing to give someone who was a little less crazy a better chance at governing the city.

Still, Democratic politicians running (or rather, ruining) New York City inevitably unleashed a long subway of failures. They run on pragmatic platforms, but they will cower to all the progressive lobbying and donor groups really running city political machinations. Sure, more common-sense Democrats are getting elected to the city council, but along with their few Republican colleagues, their stalwart opposition to the communistic madness accomplishes very little.

Add unrelenting Trump derangement syndrome to this slummy situation, and we can see why New York City is facing inescapable disaster. Democratic primary voters are sticking to their political program. Rejecting incumbent mayor Adams and disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo, New York City’s Democratic primary voters nominated democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. This guy has every element of intersectionality behind him: born in Uganda, of Hindu-Indian descent, a practicing Muslim, the child of progressive professors, a community organizer, and a small-time state assemblyman—and this radical, pro-Palestinian agitator is about to be New York City’s next leader. After 24 years, not only did New York forget 9/11, but they are also allowing a militant Islamic fundamentalist to take over! Some may remember the extensive opposition that erupted when Muslim investors wanted to put up a mosque near the World Trade Center just a year after the attacks on the World Trade Center. The outrage from the public was so great that the Muslim interests backed off.

Where’s the outrage now? Directed at Trump and to the city’s own hurt.

Pro-Palestinian militants are gleefully propping up a nepo-baby communist as the next Hizzoner. Mamdani doesn’t exactly live by Quranic principles, though. He has supported decriminalizing prostitution, he’s all in on the LGBT agenda, and he has openly fraternized with atheistic liberal elements. Of course, interest groups determined to consolidate power will tolerate all sorts of contradictions.

With Commie Mamdani, is there any hope for New York City?

The other Democrat-leaning viable alternative remains former governor Andrew Cuomo. He switched to Independent since New York allows sore losers a second chance in the general election if they lose the primary. But he is a horrible choice. He presided over COVID lockdowns, pushed sick seniors into senior centers, and allowed COVID to spread. He has a dark background littered with accusations of sexual harassment, unbridled incompetence, and other corruption issues. The best man for the job is Curt Sliwa, the civic-minded Guardian Angel who cares about people and animals (he has lots of cats!). Though not friendly with Trump, Sliwa will fight for the city.

And he doesn’t have a chance. New York City Republicans are urging him to drop out and give Cuomo a chance of winning. I hope Sliwae fights to the end. Let the commies take New York City.

The vast majority of New Yorkers still register as Democratic voters, including Jewish voters who remain progressive activists who have lined up behind pro-Hamas Mamdani, like chickens for KFC! If they don’t care about the dangers posed by this self-righteous socialist who has lived off everyone else, who can change that?

So be it. Let the Democratic socialist turn New York City into a Potemkin village of “successful communism.” Any political calculation to stop the worst candidate (Mamdani!) is inherently flawed. Supporters of Sliwa are not going to gravitate towards Cuomo. He’s just as ruthless and uncaring as Mamdani, only he doesn’t hide his disdain for collectivism. Imagine having to pick a communist or a corrupt criminal for mayor. These are the choices, and they’re very bad.

Conservative pundits are divided on allowing Mamdani to walk away with the mayoralty. Could four years of abject communism be the necessary tonic to break New Yorkers’ addiction to progressive politics? Then again, does it matter if a Mamdani mayoralty means the end of New York City as we know it? The fact is that the voters in New York City deserve to vote for whoever they want, and they deserve to get what they voted for, good and hard. If the rich white liberals and the abject, self-absorbed interest groups in New York City are so determined to virtue signal themselves into destruction, then who are we to stand in their way? Despite all the warnings from center-right pundits and media, the voters embrace the fantasy rather than a rigorous yet welcome reality.

It’s sad to see America’s largest city, and one of our most ostentatious cultural icons, deteriorate into irredeemable disrepute and disrepair, but if New Yorkers insist on a communist, they deserve all the consequences.

Is there any bright side to this Gotham political darkness? Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of New Yorkers will flee the city and settle in other parts of the country as registered Republicans, recognizing how far left (and far gone) the Democratic Party has become, and strengthen the conservative resurgence in other states.  On top of that, Republicans can connect Mamdani to every Democrat politician across the country. Democratic socialism is just communism, a few steps behind the curve. And the dank memory of the damage that communism can and has already done to other countries is still fresh in older generations. Conservatives can enjoy a renewed resurgence everywhere else.