Mapping US Income Inequality By State

The wealth of America’s top 1% sits around $52 trillion today, rising by $4 trillion over the year.

Overall, the top 1% of U.S. earners need to make around $800,000 or more in salary per household.

Meanwhile, about 30% of American households earned less than $50,000 last year, highlighting clear divides in wage distribution across the country.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows income inequality by state, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Spectrum of Income Inequality in America

In 2024, the U.S. Gini coefficient was 0.48, representing a high degree of inequality.

Effectively, a score of one means that a single person would earn all of the income, and 0 would represent perfect equality. Last year, the top 20% of earners pocketed 52.2% of the country’s income according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In contrast, the bottom fifth of earners received just 3.1%.

Yet, income is distributed differently across states. Last year, income inequality was the most severe in Washington, D.C. and New York, each with a 0.52 Gini index score.

State Gini Coefficient 2024 District of Columbia 0.52 New York 0.52 Connecticut 0.50 Louisiana 0.49 California 0.49 Massachusetts 0.48 Illinois 0.48 Florida 0.48 Texas 0.48 North Carolina 0.48 Mississippi 0.48 Pennsylvania 0.47 Tennessee 0.47 Alabama 0.47 Georgia 0.47 Washington 0.47 New Mexico 0.47 Arkansas 0.47 Rhode Island 0.47 New Jersey 0.47 Kentucky 0.47 Oklahoma 0.47 Virginia 0.47 Michigan 0.47 West Virginia 0.47 South Carolina 0.47 Nevada 0.47 Missouri 0.46 Ohio 0.46 Arizona 0.46 Colorado 0.46 Wyoming 0.46 Montana 0.46 North Dakota 0.46 Maine 0.46 Maryland 0.46 Kansas 0.46 Oregon 0.46 Vermont 0.46 Hawaii 0.45 Indiana 0.45 Minnesota 0.45 Delaware 0.45 New Hampshire 0.45 Nebraska 0.45 South Dakota 0.44 Wisconsin 0.44 Alaska 0.44 Iowa 0.44 Idaho 0.43 Utah 0.42

In Washington, D.C. the top 20% of earners made 27 times more than the bottom 20% in 2023 according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which is the highest ratio of any state between the top and bottom quintiles.

New York, on the other hand, is home to more billionaires than any other state except for California, creating huge disparities in income. Since 2019, real wage growth among the Big Apple’s top 3% soared 34.5%, more than triple all other income tiers.

Falling near the U.S. average are Florida, Texas, and Massachusetts, providing a more representative picture of income inequality in the country.

In comparison, Utah ranks lowest overall, a position it has regularly held for some time. Utah has the sixth-highest employment share (65.4%) in the country, keeping average family incomes more even.

Along with this, Utah has one of the best social mobility index scores nationwide, likely influenced by narrower wage disparities.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on wealth inequality by country in 2025.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 21:35

America's New National Security Strategy: A Surprise Departure On China Policy

Authored by Arnaud Bertrand via The Ron Paul Institute

In a big development, the final US National Security Strategy was just published and the refocus on the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the Americas) is confirmed. The document clearly establishes this as the US's number one priority, saying that the US will now "assert and enforce a 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine."

In terms of military presence, they write that this means "a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, and away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years."

On China, a couple of points...

The most striking aspect to me is that China is NOT anymore defined as "the" primary threat, "most consequential challenge," "pacing threat," or similar formulations used in previous such documents.

It’s clearly downgraded as a priority. Based on the document’s structure and emphasis, the top U.S. priorities could be characterized as:

1) Homeland security and borders (migration, cartels, etc.)

2) Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine restoration)

3) Economic security (reindustrialization, supply chains)

4) China and Indo-Pacific

To be clear they don’t define China as an ally or a partner in any shape or form but primarily as:

1) an economic competitor;

2) a source of supply chain vulnerabilities (but also a trading partner); and

3) a player who regional dominance should be "ideally" denied because it "has major implications for the U.S. economy."

Interestingly, I believe for the first time ever, they mention the possibility of being overmatched militarily by China. They write that "deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority" - but "ideally" clearly means that it’s ideal, but not necessarily a given.

Via Anadolu Agency

The fact that they call deterring conflict over Taiwan merely "a priority" also suggests, by definition, that it’s no more a top strategic priority, or a vital interest. On Taiwan they also clearly imply that if the US's "First Island Chain allies" don't "step up and spend – and more importantly do – much more for collective defense," then there might be "a balance of forces so unfavorable to us as to make defending that island impossible."

They still maintain that "the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait" but, clearly, there’s a widening gap between what the US says it opposes and what it’s actually willing to do about it.

Interestingly as well, contrary to previous such document, there is zero ideological dimension in the document when it comes to China. No "democracy vs. autocracy" framing, no "rules-based international order" to defend, no values-based crusade. China is treated as a practical issue to be managed, not an ideological adversary to be defeated.

In fact the document explicitly mentions, I think for the first time ever as well, that US policy is now:

• "not grounded in traditional, political ideology"

• that they "seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories."

• and that they seek “good relations with nations whose governing systems differ from ours."

...Which is quite a stunning departure from the rhetoric of the past few decades. We all knew this but it’s now amply clear that the era of missionary liberal internationalism in US foreign policy is dead and buried.

The competition with China is primarily described in economic terms, explicitly so: they write the competition is about "winning the economic future" and that economics are "the ultimate stakes."

Notably, they admit that the tariffs approach "that began in 2017" when it comes to China essentially failed because "China adapted" and has "strengthened its hold on supply chains."

The new strategy, as described in the document, is to build an economic coalition against China that can exert more leverage than the US economy alone – a tacit admission that America just isn't powerful enough on its own anymore.

The contradiction is however obvious: it is unclear how you build an economic coalition against China while simultaneously waging trade wars against your coalition partners, demanding they shoulder more of their own defense, and treating every allied relationship as a deal to be renegotiated in America's favor.

At some point these "allies" will be asking a very obvious question: why sacrifice our economic interests to prop up an America that can no longer compete on its own – and that offers us less and less in return? The document can be found here.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 21:00

China Successfully Operates World's First Thorium Molten Salt Reactor

By Haley Zaremba of OilPrice.com

An experimental Chinese nuclear plant reportedly just crossed a historic threshold, successfully operating the world’s first thorium-based molten salt reactor (TMSR). The Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics has broken a major scientific barrier by successfully converting thorium to uranium in a historic first.

The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reports that the breakthrough, which took place at an experimental reactor out in the Gobi Desert, is “poised to reshape the future of clean sustainable nuclear energy.” 

The process works by using a “precise sequence of nuclear reactions” in which naturally occurring thorium-232 absorbs a neutron, becoming thorium-233. Through a decay process, that isotope breaks down into protactinium-233 and then finally into uranium-233, a potent form of nuclear fuel that can sustain chain reactions for nuclear fission.

While this breakthrough was just publicized this month by a report by Science and Technology Daily, the TMSR has apparently been operational for years. Li Qingnuan, Communist Party secretary and deputy director at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, told the outlet that “since achieving first criticality on October 11, 2023, the thorium molten salt reactor has been steadily generating heat through nuclear fission”.

If the reports are true, this breakthrough would signal an incredible leap forward in a nuclear technology race that China is already winning handily. Although the United States is still the world’s biggest producer of nuclear energy, that status won’t last much longer. In the same time period that the United States built the overdue and over-budget Plant Vogtle, China built 13 reactors of similar scale, and has 33 more on the way. Beijing is also making major forays into the nuclear sectors of emerging economies, with particularly concerted efforts in Africa.

“The Chinese are moving very, very fast,” Mark Hibbs, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and expert on the Chinese nuclear sector, told the New York Times. “They are very keen to show the world that their program is unstoppable.”

But while China has invested huge sums of money and manpower into becoming a global nuclear energy innovator and superpower, the nation lacks sufficient uranium to power its lofty goals. While nuclear power production growth is dominated by China, uranium supply chains are dominated by Russia, which is home to nearly half (approximately 44 percent) of all global uranium enrichment capacity. 

China has been buying up more and more of Russia’s uranium, but reliance on exports is both risky and antithetical to China’s ethos of domestic energy independence and international energy dominance. Russia’s outsized presence in the nuclear fuel supply chain has resulted in some degree of risk and market volatility, as the Kremlin has shown that it is not afraid to use enriched uranium for political leverage.

“The nuclear energy supply chain sits atop the clean technology risk pyramid,” warned a recent article from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Beyond standard supply chain considerations, nuclear exports are subject to a suite of safety and security concerns, and overreliance on a single technology or fuel provider can create significant dependencies given the limited number of suppliers and distinct intellectual property (IP).”

By sidestepping the uranium supply chain issue by using thorium instead, China is leaping over a critical hurdle and straight over the finish line for global nuclear power sector domination. Thorium is much more accessible and abundant than uranium, and could theoretically solve all of China’s nuclear fuel problems. According to the South China Morning Post, just one mining site in Inner Mongolia “ is estimated to hold enough of the element to power China entirely for more than 1,000 years.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 19:50

China & Japan Narrowly Avoid Live Fire Conflict After F-15 Radar Lock Incident

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

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

J-15 carrier-based fighters, belonging to the air wing of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, were involved in the weekend incident. PLA file image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing has warned that Takaichi's verbalized stance constitute fighting words...

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

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

— RT (@RT_com) December 7, 2025

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 19:15

ChatGPT Accused Of Encouraging Alleged Serial Stalker In Latest OpenAI Controversy

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 18:40

Weekend:
• Schedule for Week of December 7, 2025

Monday:
• No major economic releases scheduled.

From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures S&P 500 and DOW futures are little changed (fair value).

Oil prices were up over the last week with WTI futures at $60.11 per barrel and Brent at $63.76 per barrel. A year ago, WTI was at $69, and Brent was at $74 - so WTI oil prices are down about 15% year-over-year.

Here is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are at $2.90 per gallon. A year ago, prices were at $2.97 per gallon, so gasoline prices are down $0.07 year-over-year.

Freshly Pardoned Cuellar Says Biden DOJ Tried To Entrap Him; Trump Lashes Out Over 'Lack Of Loyalty'

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

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

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

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

Bartiromo was clearly shocked by the allegations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 18:05

Russia Stands "Shoulder To Shoulder" With Venezuela, Blasts US War Footing

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

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

Prior file image: Kremlin.ru

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

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

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

According to more of his statement:

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

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

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

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

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

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 7, 2025

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 16:55

Oversupply Warning Jolts India's Solar Buildout

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com,

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

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

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

Local demand won’t come close to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 16:20

Mainstream Media Jumps On Bogus Narrative That J6 Pipe Bomber Was A Trump Supporter

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

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

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

Other networks promptly followed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 15:45

Zelenskyy Says He Had 'Long And Substantive' Phone Call With Witkoff, Kushner As Peace Talks Continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 14:35

'Twas The Night Before Fed Day...

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

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

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

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

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

• I think the market is still underpricing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War and Peace

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

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

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

Europe does something aggressive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does China make of all of this?

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

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

Bottom Line

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

• Valuations and the direction of AI tech and spending.

• Electricity generation bottle necks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 14:00

Barclays Asks: Netflix-Warner Bros Deal - Holy Grail... Or Poisoned Chalice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson continued:

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

This is the most dangerous media consolidation in American history.

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

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

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 5, 2025

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

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

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 29, 2025

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 13:25

Biden, Who Swore He Was Fit For Another Term, Butchers America's Name

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Former President Joe Biden resurfaced on Friday and stumbled through his remarks once again, months after insisting he was fit to serve another term and not too long after announcing he had stage IV cancer. 

The 83-year-old former president mangled the country’s name as “Amerigotit” while delivering a 20-minute speech at a conference hosted by the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute. 

The gaffe occurred specifically as Biden claimed that the Democrats could emerge from the “many crises caused by this administration.” 

He said, “But we just have to get up. As long as we keep the faith, some hope and get back up and remember who in the hell we are — we are the United States of Amerigotit.”  

“That’s who we are. We are the US,” he added. 

JOE BIDEN: "We are the United States of Amerigotit”
pic.twitter.com/x4YraMRIAT

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 5, 2025

Biden appeared at the event to receive the Chris Abele Impact Award, which praised his purported record on “inclusivity” during his four years in the White House. 

In addition to the gaffes, Biden resorted to familiar smears against the Republican Party, accusing them of using “people’s basic identity” as a “political football.” 

“They’re trying to turn it into something scary, something sinister,” Biden claimed without offering evidence.  

“But folks, it’s not really about anything that’s all that complicated. 

At its core, it’s about giving every American an opportunity to be treated with the basic decency, dignity and respect they all deserve,” he added. 

Nowhere in his speech did Biden acknowledge the openly gay men serving in the Trump administration, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions Richard Grenell. 

Trump has also appointed several other gay men to high-level posts. Charles Moran serves as a senior Energy Department official, Jacob Helberg is undersecretary of state, Bill White was appointed ambassador to Belgium and Art Fisher was named ambassador to Austria. 

In addition, Trump has long embraced support from “Gays for Trump” groups and affiliated movements throughout his presidential campaigns. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 12:50

Russian Forces Advance As Ukraine Hit By More Than 600 Drone Strikes Overnight

Russian forces made advances in Ukraine as U.S. and Ukrainian officials prepared for a third day of peace talks in Miami.

Russia unleashed 51 missiles and 623 drone strikes on Dec. 6, which was observed as Armed Forces Day in Ukraine.

Ukraine shot down 30 missiles and neutralized 585 drones in the attack, which targeted residential buildings, energy facilities, and railways in 29 locations.

At least eight people were wounded in Saturday’s strikes, including three in the Kyiv region, according to Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko.

“The night was tough,” Klymenko wrote in a translation of an X post on Dec. 6.

“Russia again struck civilian infrastructure with drones and missiles.”

As Jacki Thrapp details below for The Epoch Times, the barrage occurred after Russian forces advanced north and southeast of Myrnohrad and infiltrated positions in northwestern Pokrovsk, the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) confirmed in its Dec. 5 report.

Myrnohrad and Pokrovsk are located in the southeastern part of the country, nearly 200 miles from the Russian border town of Kamensk-Shakhtinsky.

Data reviewed by the nonprofit research organization found that even though Russian forces advanced on Myrnohrad, they have not encircled Ukrainian forces in the city as of Dec. 5. However, Russian forces are attempting to complete the isolation of the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket, the ISW stated.

As Moscow continued escalations in Ukraine, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Ukrainian negotiators Rustem Umerov and Andriy Hnatov discussed a security framework for postwar Ukraine in Florida on Friday.

Charred electric trains are seen in a damaged depot in the town of Fastiv, Kyiv region, after an air attack, on Dec. 6, 2025, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Serhii Okunev/AFP via Getty Images

It was the sixth meeting the parties have had over the course of two weeks.

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

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

Another round of discussions is scheduled for Dec. 6.

During a speech on Dec. 6, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy congratulated the “warriors” who are “holding back the occupiers on all fronts.”

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

Zelenskyy thanked everybody who defended Ukraine and said, “Eternal memory to those who gave their lives for Ukraine. Glory to Ukraine!”

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 12:15

Most analysts expect the FOMC to reduce the Fed Funds rate by 25bps at the meeting this week to a target range of 3-1/2 to 3-3/4 percent.    Market participants currently expect two additional rate cuts in 2026.
Analysis suggests rates are currently slightly restrictive (Cleveland Fed) or even already accommodative (even before this rate cut).  So, to cut rates in this environment, FOMC members are clearly expecting either inflation to decline quickly or an employment recession, or both.  This outlook should show up in the projections (lower inflation, higher unemployment rate).
From Goldman Sachs:

The FOMC is widely expected to deliver a third consecutive 25bp interest rate cut to 3.5-3.75% at what will likely be a contentious December meeting next week. ... The case for a cut is solid, in our view. Job growth remains too low to keep up with labor supply growth, the unemployment rate has risen for three months in a row to 4.4%, other measures of labor market tightness have weakened more on average, and some alternative data measures of layoffs have begun to rise recently, presenting a new and potentially more serious downside risk.

From BofA:

The Fed has signaled that it will cut rates by 25bp to 3.5-3.75% at its Dec meeting. We look for two or three substantive changes in the FOMC statement. The description of labor market conditions is likely to omit the language that the u-rate “remained low”, to reflect the 32bp uptick over the last three months.
...
The SEP is likely to show upgrades to growth in 2025 and 2026. ... However, as a mark-to-market based on the latest data, we think the u-rate for 4Q 2025 will be taken up by a tenth to 4.6%. ... These changes would provide some cover for cutting rates despite the expected upgrades to the growth outlook.
emphasis added

Projections will be released at this meeting. Here are the September projections.  
The BEA's estimate for first half 2025 GDP showed real growth at 1.6% annualized. Most estimates for Q3 GDP are around 3.5%.  That would put the real growth for the first three quarters at 2.2% annualized - well above the top end of the September projections.   So GDP for 2025 will likely be increased.
GDP projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Change in Real GDP1 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20251.4 to 1.71.7 to 2.11.8 to 2.0Jun 20251.2 to 1.51.5 to 1.81.7 to 2.0 1 Projections of change in real GDP and inflation are from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

The unemployment rate was at 4.4% in September.  The unemployment rate will likely increase further this year. There was no data for October due to the government shutdown, and the November report will be released on December 16th - the week after the FOMC meeting - so the FOMC is flying blind this week on the unemployment rate.  However, they will probably increase the 2025 projection (and possibly 2026) as justification for the rate cut.  An unemployment rate of 4.6% over the next few months might be recessionary (according to the Sahm rule).
Unemployment projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Unemployment Rate2 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20254.4 to 4.54.4 to 4.54.2 to 4.4Jun 20254.4 to 4.54.3 to 4.64.2 to 4.6 2 Projections for the unemployment rate are for the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

As of September 2025, PCE inflation increased 2.8 percent year-over-year (YoY), up from 2.7 percent YoY in August.  Projections for PCE inflation will probably remain unchanged or lowered slightly.
Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, PCE Inflation1 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20252.9 to 3.02.4-2.72.0 to 2.2Jun 20252.8 to 3.22.3-2.62.0 to 2.2
PCE core inflation increased 2.8 percent YoY, down from 2.9 percent in August.   Projections for 2025 core PCE inflation will likely be decreased.
Core Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Core Inflation1 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20253.0 to 3.22.5-2.72.0 to 2.2Jun 20252.9 to 3.42.3-2.62.0 to 2.2

California Agency Approves Water Management Plan Increasing Output

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has approved a revised plan for managing California’s Central Valley Project (CVP), with the goal of sending more water to farmers in the state

An aerial view shows Friant Dam, which holds back Millerton Lake in Friant, Calif., on March 7, 2025. Jae C. Hong/AP Photo

The revised operation, called Action 5, aligns with directives from Executive Order 14181, signed on Jan. 24 by President Donald Trump, which orders federal agencies to maximize water output from the CVP while complying with legal standards.

“With the signing of this Record of Decision, we are delivering on the promise of Executive Order 14181 to strengthen California’s water resilience,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement on Thursday.

Burgum also said the updated operations plan employs the state-of-the-art science to increase water deliveries while safeguarding the environment.

Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Andrea Travnicek said that Action 5 represents a forward-looking approach to water management that balances the needs of the state’s communities, agriculture, and ecosystems.

“By refining real-time governance and operational flexibility, we are ensuring that every drop of water is managed with precision, accountability, and purpose,” she said.

The change could increase yearly CVP distributions by 130,000 to 180,000 acre-feet, with the State Water Project gaining 120,000 to 220,000 acre-feet, depending on weather and California’s implementation of Action 5.

The new strategy overrides the December 2024 framework and incorporates advanced scientific tools for decision-making. The adjustments stay within the 2024 environmental impact study’s scope and are in line with biological assessments from NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Notable shifts include minor changes to Delta pumping, ending the Delta Summer and Fall Habitat Action, and removal of export-reduction ideas from California’s Healthy Rivers and Landscapes initiative.

The announcement occurs at the same time as the 90th anniversary of the CVP’s 1935 authorization, which created an expansive system of dams, reservoirs, and canals spanning 400 miles from Redding to Bakersfield, and serving up to 30 million people.

In December 2024, federal and state officials agreed to regulate CVP flows to protect against floods and droughts.

“The new framework supercharges our adaptive management and enables project operators to work with water users and the broader public to better manage the system to benefit millions of Californians and endangered fish species,” state water director Karla Nemeth said at the time. “Extreme storms and extended droughts mean we need to be as nimble as possible in operating our water infrastructure.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated federal collaboration between the state and the then-Biden administration, claiming the future would be hotter and drier.

“That means we have to do everything we can now to prepare and ensure our water infrastructure can handle these extremes,” Newsom said at the time.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Mike Brain said the Central Valley Project “is critical to the state’s water supply future.”

Funding help came in September, with $1 billion for storage expansions, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) announced.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 11:40

Denmark Cuts Ukraine Aid Nearly In Half Amid Corruption Scandal

Denmark plans to scale back its military assistance to Ukraine next year, and the amount cut is being widely reported as a huge amount - up to almost half of what's it's been since 2022.

According to Danish Broadcasting Corporation, the tiny northern European country has long stood out for its exceptionally high contributions that it made earlier in the conflict, but now the Danish government wants other countries should shoulder more of the burden.

Via Reuters

The country's Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen has informed parliament that the government intends to allocate 9.4 billion kroner (around $1.5 billion) in aid to Ukraine in 2026.

This marks a decrease from the 16.5 billion kroner (about $2.6 billion) provided this year and the nearly 19 billion kroner (roughly $3 billion) distributed the prior year.

Danish media has described that this is partly the result dwindling resources in the Ukraine Fund, which is a dedicated pool established in 2023 with broad political support among European allies.

In total, since the start of the war in early 2022 Denmark has provided a whopping nearly $11 billion in military aid to Kiev. It has also provided F-16 jets and hosted fighter pilot training programs for Ukrainians.

Simon Kollerup, a member of the Denmark's Defense Committee, has stated that "it is natural that we are seeing a stabilization of the level of support being provided".

"We decided to be one of the countries that took the lead at the beginning of the war by providing large-scale support. I also think it is fair to say that this support somewhat exceeds what is actually dictated by the size of our country. Therefore, I find it quite natural that the support is decreasing," Kollerup added.

This comes at a time that Washington is also withdrawing much of its outsized support to Ukraine, with Trump's preferred scheme being to sell weapons to Europe, which will in turn sell or transfer them to Kiev.

The timing of Denmark's announced major reduction in aid also comes as the Zelensky government is mired in a corruption scandal which goes straight to the presidential office itself (with top aides having been dismissed and investigated), so perhaps some EU countries are finally wising up, and no longer wish to act in a blank check manner.

Ukraine’s top donor Denmark to nearly halve military aid in 2026

It will be $1.5bn next year, down from $2.6bn spent this year. It was $3bn in 2024.

Denmark sees that their $11bn weapons support incl. F-16 did not yield a win.

The Danes hate corruption more than Russia. pic.twitter.com/RQjR1HxWIr

— Alternative News (@AlternatNews) December 7, 2025

Even the NY Times has just acknowledged in a report that "President Volodymyr Zelensky's administration has stacked boards with loyalists, left seats empty, or stalled them from being set up at all. Leaders in Kiev even rewrote company charters to limit oversight, keeping the government in control and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent without outsiders poking around."

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 11:05

As The Year Ends, What Does 2026 Hold

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Markets opened in December with a surge in optimism as retail investors regained their “bullish spirit.” That improvement continues to build on the bullish case we discussed last week:

“Seasonality, positioning, and trend still lean in favor of the bulls. December is historically one of the stronger months for equities, particularly when the market is already up by double digits year-to-date. Expectations for a December Fed rate cut, and a gradual cooling of inflation, support the “soft-landing” narrative, while corporate buybacks and under-invested managers create fuel for a “chase into year-end” if resistance gives way. With volatility easing and breadth improving, the path of least resistance near term remains higher if key support zones are maintained.”

The increase in optimism is also attributable to the significant policy pivot from the Federal Reserve. On December 1, the Fed officially ended its quantitative tightening (QT) program. The halting of the runoff of its balance sheet and the injection of fresh liquidity into financial markets are essential. We will discuss this more momentarily. But for investors, this change removed a persistent headwind and reignited expectations for a more accommodative stance in 2026.

Speaking of Fed policy, the next FOMC rate decision is this coming week. The CME futures markets now reflect a very high probability of a 0.25% rate cut. Furthermore, expectations for further rate cuts in March of next year have risen. However, as discussed in last week’s brief, seasonality, dip-buying, and institutional positioning are already in play, and the removal of QT adds fuel to that narrative, helping to lift asset prices.

Notably, there has been a shift away from stretched growth names toward lagging sectors, such as energy, financials, and healthcare, which has improved market breadth. That improvement is a necessary component of a more sustainable rally. However, much of the action still appears technical and remains inconsistent with bullish markets.

Next week, the focus will shift toward confirmation as the markets closely scrutinize the Fed’s commentary for clues on the timing and scope of further rate cuts. Liquidity indicators in repo markets and short-term funding will also be critical. If those stay stable, the rally could continue. Lastly, economic data, particularly inflation and employment figures, the first since the Government shutdown, will also play a role in shaping expectations.

For now, the rally has legs, but once we enter 2026, the fundamentals will need to improve to sustain it.

Markets have reached a crossroads.

Investors are staring down two sharply opposing narratives as 2025 comes to a close. On one side, there’s optimism: the Federal Reserve has ended quantitative tightening, liquidity is rising, and key sectors are flush with capital. On the other hand, significant risks remain unresolved: narrow market leadership, elevated valuations, growing household stress, and deepening concerns in the credit market.

These are all things we have discussed previously, but the split reflects more than market noise. It’s a clash between structural bullish support and underlying economic fragility. While both cases are grounded in data and each carries significant implications for asset allocation, risk management, and long-term investment outcomes, they are equally essential to consider.

As we will discuss, the bull case leans heavily on liquidity, fiscal support, and renewed investment. The return of easy monetary conditions, a shift in political leadership favoring tax cuts and increased spending, and massive capital expenditure commitments by the largest U.S. companies paint a picture of continued upside. If those forces hold, equities could continue to grind higher, lifting all sectors or at least sustaining current valuations.

Conversely, the bear case warns that the fundamentals are fraying beneath the surface. Household debt is rising, delinquencies are increasing across income brackets, and private credit markets are displaying early warning signs. Meanwhile, the rally remains narrowly focused on a few mega-cap stocks tied to artificial intelligence. If those names falter, the broader market could quickly give up its gains.

In today’s analysis, we will examine both arguments and outline the most likely path for markets in 2026. Whether the market skews bullish or breaks bearish, investors need a plan. What matters now isn’t conviction in one narrative. What matters is readiness for either outcome.

Let’s get into it.

Bull Case: Why the Market Could Push Higher

Liquidity has shifted significantly more favorably for risk assets and equities. On December 1, 2025, the Federal Reserve (Fed) officially ended its quantitative tightening (QT) program and is scheduled to cut overnight lending rates by another 0.25% next week. The Fed has simultaneously conducted a large overnight repurchase agreement injection of approximately $13.5 billion into the banking system, which is the second-largest liquidity injection since the COVID-19 era began.

That signals the Fed is done draining cash from the system and may even be ready to begin loosening again. Furthermore, that shift removes a significant structural drag on equities. Furthermore, as noted, adding to that backdrop are further expected rate cuts, as early as next week. As shown, the market performs well during periods of a Federal Reserve rate-cutting cycle when the economy is not in a recession. Currently, although economic data remains weak, recession risks are muted.

With easier liquidity, investors are likely to return to riskier assets. Historically, when QT ends and liquidity returns, equities have tended to rally, and the renewed cash flow may support not only large-cap stocks but also corporate cap-ex, buybacks, and broader credit-based investments. The return of liquidity breathes new life into the structural bull arguments of a fresh technology cycle, substantial capital expenditure by major firms, corporate buybacks, and deregulation or capital easing.

Furthermore, on the consumer side, while household debt rose modestly in Q3, overall borrowing increased in a controlled way. Total U.S. household debt reached about $18.59 trillion as of Q3 2025, a 1 percent increase over the prior quarter and up about $642 billion year‑over‑year. That rise was reflected in mortgages, credit cards, student loans, HELOCs, and auto loans. Notably, mortgage balances alone rose by $137 billion, bringing the total mortgages to $13.07 trillion.

Despite this, delinquency rates for mortgages remain relatively stable, while student-loan and unsecured debt are showing increased levels of strain. This suggests that households are still serviceable on their debt, which in turn could provide further support to corporate earnings in the near term. Again, I am not dismissing the rise in credit card and student loan delinquencies, but these have not yet morphed into broader economic stress…yet.

Given liquidity, consumer balance‑sheet resilience (at least in aggregate), and the potential for renewed capital expenditures and buybacks, the environment favors further upside. Stocks that had lagged or sectors outside of narrow, “hot” themes may attract renewed interest as investors seek value and diversified exposure.

Statistically, there is also a bullish case to be made. As shown in the table below, many have forgotten about the ~20% decline we saw in March and April this year. That “reset” was necessary as 20% corrections, while they happen, are more “severe” events that reverse overly bullish sentiment and positioning. However, more notable was the sharp reversal from the April lows. Such a selloff and reversal has only occurred four times since 1950. While there is still roughly one month left in 2025, if returns hold at their current levels, it suggests that 2026 could have a positive year as bullish momentum continues.

But not everything is “bullish” heading into 2026.

Bear Case: Why the Rally Could Falter

While a bullish outlook for 2026 is present, numerous and growing risks are also present. Many of the powerful catalysts that drove the post‑pandemic rally now show signs of fatigue or overhang. However, before we delve into those, let’s begin with overall performance. Over the last three years, the market has delivered extraordinarily high returns of 20% or more consecutively. That is not unprecedented, but it does lean to the more unusual side of the statistical ledger. As we noted yesterday in our #DailyMarket Commentary:

“The S&P 500 has posted a strong three-year price return of approximately 76.7 percent, excluding dividends. That translates to an annualized return of 20% to 22%. This is well above the long-term average annual return of roughly 10% to 11% with dividends reinvested. Such elevated returns over a short period suggest that the market is trading well above its historical trend. Historically, when the S&P 500 rolling 3-year return is two standard deviations above its three-year moving average, the market is statistically extended. This deviation typically precedes a shift in volatility and return outcomes. In other words, when markets reach this level of extension, two patterns emerge: increased volatility and weaker forward returns.”

While many expect 2026 to be a continuation of 2025, we should always respect the most powerful force in investing: the principle of “reversion to the mean.”

However, adding to that concern is the continued fact that the market remains extremely narrow. Gains have concentrated heavily among a small group of high-growth companies with strong ties to AI and technology. If optimism around AI, tech investment, or “transformational technology” cracks, even slightly, whether due to earnings disappointments, regulatory headwinds, or shifting investor sentiment, the broader market could struggle. The narrow leadership leaves little margin for broader weakness, and given that the vast majority of earnings growth has come from a handful of companies, it suggests that “disappointment risk” could be a significant factor next year.

Valuations remain elevated. With forward price‑to-earnings (P/E) multiples for the broad market stretched, there is little buffer for disappointments in earnings growth, macroeconomic slowdown, or credit stress. Overpaid valuations amplify the downside if growth or liquidity fails to meet expectations.

Credit‑market vulnerabilities are rising. The rapid growth of non-bank “private credit” as an alternative to traditional lending is now drawing scrutiny. Investors are increasingly withdrawing from publicly listed funds that hold such private credit instruments. That suggests waning confidence and potential repricing of private debt risk. If borrowers across corporate or household sectors struggle, losses could reverberate through credit markets and spill into equities.

One caveat to the bear case is that while these are all very valid factors that could negatively impact stocks, they are also dependent on a more macro-type shock to “ignite the fuse.” Yes, valuations are high, but there must be an “event” to cause a rapid repricing of forward earnings estimates. Yes, debt is problematic, but only when a recession triggers job losses, leading to sharp increases in defaults across all categories.

So, yes, while these factors are essential, I do not expect them to occur over the span of the next week, month, or even quarter.

However, with that being said, what should investors expect heading into next year?

In 2026, there is a growing possibility that investors may experience both bull and bear markets. As noted, the “bear case” is predicated on longer-term, macro events that will take some time to mature. However, the “bull case” is more focused on short-term factors, such as liquidity, which, although plentiful today, can evaporate tomorrow. Given the data and dynamics, the most likely near-term outcome is a continued bull market, which may lead to increased volatility and potentially bearish outcomes later in the year.

Key Catalysts Next Week

Markets enter this week with elevated expectations. With the recent end of quantitative tightening, investors are now watching a cluster of important events that could define whether the year-end rally broadens or stalls. The most significant driver will be the upcoming meeting of the Federal Reserve (Fed). But a series of economic data releases and significant corporate earnings will also test optimism.

What Investors Should Focus On

• The Fed meeting on December 10 looms as the central anchor. A well‑telegraphed 25‑bps cut, or even the possibility of a path of cuts, could reopen risk‑asset flows. If the Fed soft‑pedals, expect volatility and potential rotation out of overvalued sectors.

• Labor market data from JOLTS and weekly jobless claims will indicate whether employment remains resilient or is starting to exhibit cracks, which has direct implications for consumer spending and credit risk.

• Earnings from big tech and AI firms (ORCL, ADBE, and AVGO) will continue to test whether growth expectations baked into valuations are realistic or overly optimistic.

• The mix of budget, trade, and cost data will inform broader macro narratives, including growth, inflation, and fiscal/credit conditions.

This week offers a high‑stakes test of sentiment. If liquidity (through the Fed’s policy) aligns with solid economic and earnings data, the rally could broaden beyond mega‑caps and extend into 2026. If not, this “year‑end bounce” risks fading or turning into a broader reassessment.

Support and Resistance Zones

Based on the 6,878 close and the latest available pivot‑point and technical data, key zones to watch in the coming sessions:

• Immediate support: ~ 6,744 – 6,757 (20- and 50-day moving average cluster)

• Secondary support: ~ 6,598 (100‑day moving average) — a zone that, if broken, would signal weakening of the broader uptrend.

• Critical Support ~6,195 (200-day moving average) – if this level fails, the market will be facing a larger corrective action.

• Near‑term resistance: ~ 6,885 – 6,900 as markets approach previous rally peaks and all-time highs

• Major resistance/breakout zone: ~ 6,920–6,940 would clear previous all-time highs moving next resistance to top of current trend line near ~7,000

The rally this past week showed signs of expanding beyond just the most significant growth and AI‑related names. As discussed last week, some underappreciated sectors, such as value and cyclical-linked areas, registered relative gains. That diversification in participation tends to support the durability of a bullish uptrend.

Caution flags also emerged and are worth paying attention to.

While the market gained ground, volume was modest, suggesting many investors remain hesitant and are not fully committing. If this remains the case, the risk of a rally built primarily on liquidity and short-term positioning, rather than broad conviction, is susceptible to swift reversals in investor sentiment. Additionally, with prices exceeding the 200-day averages, the risk of a correction also increases.

Overall, the technical backdrop is bullish but is not devoid of risk. Continue to maintain a disciplined approach, respect support and resistance levels, and manage risk exposures accordingly.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 10:30

Goldman Reveals Housing "Affordability Illusion" When Factoring Other Costs

Affordability has surged into the news cycle and is almost certain to dominate the coming midterm election cycle. And when voters talk about "affordability," they're most concerned about the basic cost of living. Beyond food and healthcare, nothing hits harder than housing costs. 

Goldman analysts led by Arun Manohar have some bad news on the housing affordability front: even with lower mortgage rates and slower home-price growth, it's largely an "illusion of affordability" once other ownership costs, such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance, are factored in. 

Manohar explained more in a recent note to clients:

The most important topic of discussion in the housing market remains the challenging affordability situation. The recent decline in mortgage rates and the weak pace of HPA has resulted in housing affordability climbing to the highest level since 2022 (Exhibit 1). However, affordability remains low at the 18th percentile over the past 30 years. Although affordability has climbed, it is important to note that the standard affordability metrics do not capture all the costs of homeownership such as taxes, insurance and maintenance (collectively referred to as 'other costs'). To capture the effect of 'other costs,' we rely on estimates from Zillow for the monthly mortgage payment and total monthly payment on a new home purchased with the average interest rate of the month. The difference between the two series accounts for homeowner's insurance, property taxes, and maintenance costs. We find that metro areas that have experienced home price declines over the past year have generally witnessed greater increases in the 'other costs' over the past few years (Exhibit 2). Although falling home prices would typically make a home more affordable, prospective buyers may experience only partial relief since overall homeownership costs are not decreasing at the same rate as property values. With the median age of the US housing stock being over 40 years old, nationwide insurance premiums and maintenance expenses could increase further.

Mortgage rates are unlikely to decline enough to provide a significant boost to affordability in 2026. 

Manohar's view on President Trump's newly proposed 50-year mortgage: 

50-year mortgages: Short-term affordability boost, but with long-term consequencesRecently, the administration and the FHFA Director have explored the feasibility of introducing a 50-year mortgage product to help improve mortgage affordability. The 30-year fixed rate mortgage available in the US is already among the longest in the developed world. We see four key issues with a 50-year mortgage. First, while monthly payments decline slightly, the increase in the lifetime cost of homeownership can be prohibitive. Using the example of a $400k mortgage at 6.25% interest rates, we note that if the term were to be extended to 50-years, the monthly principal and interest payment would be about 11% lower than that if the term remained at 30-years. However, the total lifetime interest would climb 87% (Exhibit 4). Second, the above calculation assumes mortgage rates are the same for 30-year and 50-year mortgages. In reality though, the longer term will likely translate into higher mortgage rates and hence lower savings in monthly payments. It is quite likely that a 50-year mortgage would receive a rate that is at least 50bp higher than that on a 30-year mortgage (Exhibit 5). Using the same example of a $400k mortgage and the assumption that a 50-year mortgage receives a 50bp higher rate than the 30-year mortgage, the savings in monthly payment drops to just 5%, and the total lifetime interest would more than double. A mortgage rate that is 95bp higher than the prevailing 30-year mortgage rate of 6.25% would result in parity in monthly payments, completely nullifying the benefits of extending the term to 50 years. Third, with a 50-year mortgage, borrowers would build equity at an even slower pace than that with a 30-year mortgage during the initial years, which increases default risks in a housing downturn scenario. Finally, a sudden boost to affordability risks increasing home prices, as potential homebuyers would compete for the same limited inventory. Therefore, any improvement in housing affordability would be short lived.

In a recent Fox News interview, Vice President JD Vance blamed the affordability crisis on lingering effects of failed policies from the Biden-Harris years.

"A lot of young people are saying, housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought by right go to American citizens," Vance told Fox News' Sean Hannity last month. And at the same time, we weren't building enough new houses to begin with, even for the population that we had."

ZeroHedge Pro subs can read the full note in the usual place. It's packed with a lot more housing market charts.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/07/2025 - 09:55