Zero Hedge

China, US Extend Tariff Pause Another 90 Days

China, US Extend Tariff Pause Another 90 Days

Ahead of trade talks in Stockholm that are set to begin tomorrow, The South China Morning Post reports that, according to sources close to the matter on both sides, the US and China are set to extend their tariff truced by another three months.

China and the United States agreed in May to remove most of the heavy tariffs levied on each other's goods for 90 days while continuing trade negotiations.

That suspension is set to expire on August 12.

SCMP reports that one source said that, during the expected 90-day extension, the two nations will commit to not impose additional tariffs on each other, nor escalate the trade war by other means.

People's Daily, the mouthpiece of China's ruling Communist Party, said in an editorial on Sunday that Beijing was willing to work with Washington to make "substantive progress" in resolving issues during the coming trade talks in the Swedish capital.

"China has always maintained a constructive position and insisted on resolving issues through equal dialogue and consultation," the newspaper said.

"It is willing to work with the US to take the economic and trade talks in Sweden as an opportunity to continuously enhance consensus, accumulate mutual trust, reduce misjudgments and strengthen cooperation."

While analysts have welcomed the continuation of discussions, most do not expect any sweeping changes to emerge from the negotiations in Stockholm.

"Don't hold your breath. I don't think it's going to be a breakthrough, but I hope I'm wrong," Niklas Swanstrom, director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy, a think tank based in Stockholm, said ahead of the talks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 11:37

Trump: Macron's Two-State Talk "Doesn't Matter" & "Carries No Weight"

Trump: Macron's Two-State Talk "Doesn't Matter" & "Carries No Weight"

France this week became the largest European nation, and the first G7 country, to recognize a Palestinian state, a move strongly condemned by Israel - and which has also angered Washington

President Donald Trump in Friday comments to the press dismissed French President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement that he would recognize a Palestinian state, saying it would have no ultimate or real impact.

"The good news is, what he says doesn’t matter. It won’t change anything," Trump told reporters on the White House lawn. "He’s a good guy. I like him, but that statement carries no weight."

Via AFP

Trump went on to describe Macron as "a different kind of guy" but still "a team player." Macron signaled that he plans to make the recognition official at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

France's decision was announced in a letter sent to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas by Macron. "True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine," Macron wrote in the letter, which was subsequently published to the public. 

Other major European powers like Germany have indicated they do not plan to follow France in similar recognition.

Also, the UK has also not formally recognized a Palestinian state, though Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently raised eyebrows by calling Palestinian statehood "the inalienable right of the Palestinian people."

Still, Britain does not typically stray too far from the United States when it comes to issues of official policy toward Israel.

But what's often called the 'Global South' has been pushing to given recognition, as already over 140 countries around the world have done so. This includes about a dozen smaller countries in Europe.

In 2014, Sweden became the first member of the European Union to recognize Palestine as a state, though Cyprus had done so in 1988 before it joined the EU in 2004. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia each originally acknowledged Palestine's statehood by virtue of their alliances with the former Soviet Union.

While other European states remained reticent since Sweden's 2014 declaration, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain each official recognized Palestinian statehood in 2024 in response to the onslaught Israel has unleashed in Gaza.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 11:05

Retailers Accused Of "Racism" As They Flee Black Neighborhoods In Milwaukee

Retailers Accused Of "Racism" As They Flee Black Neighborhoods In Milwaukee

Milwaukee is the latest in a long list of US cities facing a rapid retail exodus in minority neighborhoods and once again the blame is being placed on the companies in question rather than the behavior of the residents as they protests the rising tide of "food deserts".

At the beginning of July, city officials mounted a public outcry after Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. announced the decision to close at least five Pick 'n Save supermarket locations, including one in Milwaukee's Metcalfe Park neighborhood. 

The city was also notified by Walgreens that they will be closing at least seven locations over the next two years and CVS will be closing some locations as well.  Activists argue that the closures center around "black and brown neighborhoods" and that these areas "deserve access" to nearby grocery outlets.  

Kroger's decision was discussed at a July 2 meeting of the Common Council's Community and Economic Development Committee.  Many people walk or take the bus to buy food, said Alderwoman Sharlen P. Moore. If the store is gone, they may have nowhere close to shop.  “This impacts our city,” Moore said. “They’re closing quite a bit of grocery stores that are in neighborhoods that absolutely have no access to groceries.”

Angry residents presented a number of far-left arguments and solutions, including finding ways to force companies to keep stores open and "boycotting" the stores (which are closing anyway).  They also suggested recruiting help from the "Party Of Socialism And Liberation" (PSL) as a means to put pressure on exiting businesses.  Their motto?  "For the planet to live, capitalism must end".

Though Milwaukee saw a promising dip in overall crime rates (except homicides) in the first quarter of 2025, the city deals with a continuing trend of high retail theft.  Leftists blame low wages and Trump policies which they claim are causing "inflation" (the majority of current inflation was generated under the Biden Administration, not Trump).  The neighborhoods losing the most retail access are neighborhoods with higher crime.  In other words, if the residents stopped stealing, those stores might stay open.

As usual, however, the narrative turns to victimization and marginalization. 

The situation is symbolic of the enduring conundrum for blue city progressives and their socialist ilk - They want to be able to steal from the wealthy in the name of "reparations", but they can't force the wealthy to stick around.  Companies can only be bled dry if they sit passively and expose a vein.  When they simply walk away, there's nothing that leftists can do.  Walking away is kryptonite for socialists.

This is why protests like those in Milwaukee and other blue cities over food deserts achieve nothing.

No one is entitled to retail access.  No community deserves to have a grocery store nearby.  Businesses must be able to maintain enough profit to make a store location viable.   There are hundreds of grocery outlets in the Milwaukee region; the complaint is not that stores are gone, the complaint is that the people in affected neighborhoods don't want to drive a few miles to the next closest location.

A fundamental adjustment in behavior in minority communities could very well revitalize their business environment.  All they have to do is stop committing crimes and the stores will come flooding back in.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 10:44

Is The Epstein Affair A Watershed Moment?

Is The Epstein Affair A Watershed Moment?

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Perhaps when we look back on the Epstein Affair, we'll understand that it broke the back of Americans' faith in their political and law enforcement institutions.

We're being told the Epstein Affair is old news, nothing to see here, move along--but I'm not so sure. It could be the opposite of old news, a watershed moment in American history.

Watershed moments can be sudden, dramatic events that we all experience as "nothing is the same after this," or long-brewing crises that we only discern were watersheds when looking back.

The Epstein Affair may be the second type of watershed, only recognized in the rear view mirror. In his post Jeff Epstein, MAGA, and Monopolies, Matt Stoller made two noteworthy observations:

1. The MAGA movement--which includes many factions--attached great importance to the Epstein case as the most egregious manifestation of elite abuse of power. To have the files buried yet again only proves the powerful who would be exposed have yet again evaded being held accountable.

2. The scandal isn't what's been hidden, it's that Epstein operated in plain sight.

Naomi Wolf's essay, "The Network" in the Worlds of the Elites, reveals the enormous reach of Epstein's recruitment of elites across the entirety of America's power structure, what I've called since 2007 (see diagram below) Elites Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance.

This structure isn't The Deep State, it's far larger and just as entrenched, for it's "the sum is greater than the parts" assembly of all of America's elites and elite institutions of soft and hard power projection. (Soft power: cultural, institutionalized influence, non-military systems; hard power: military, diplomatic, financial.)

Epstein's operation was an informal hub-and-spoke network of power elites ranging from politics to academia to science to media to Big Tech and beyond.

The French word engrenages comes to mind here: commonly translated as gearing, but more appropriately perhaps it also denotes being caught up in gearing that is irreversible due to the design and mechanics of the system, and then being caught up in an inescapable series of events.

In other words, Epstein's hub-and-spoke network wasn't an aberration, it was the optimization of the status quo system. This is the taboo that cannot be said out loud. Now everyone who is caught up in the gearing is also a participant in an inescapable series of events.

My summary of the Epstein Affair is: the elites aren't above the law; there is no law. This is what's being displayed in plain sight, but we recoil at recognizing it, for it means democracy and rule of law are both convenient fabrications deployed to maintain public compliance.

Recall Smith's Neofeudalism Principle #1: If the citizenry cannot replace a kleptocratic authoritarian government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only.

Donald Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but the Epstein Affair makes it clear that both of America's political parties are The Swamp. Neither party did anything but cover up, misdirect or pointedly refuse to expose the Epstein Affair to open air.

I understand many of you are party loyalists, so let's conduct a thought experiment. Consider the central Asian nation of Corruptistan, which is currently experiencing an uncannily similar scandal of a shadowy, well-connected "fixer" who collected $1.5 billion via 4,000+ wire transfers from unrevealed sources, who ran a vast network of sordid sexual exploitation of minors along with many above-ground influence-peddling schemes connecting elites in various fields.

Nominally a democracy, political power in Corruptistan is traded between two political parties. Neither party has acted to reveal the fixer's network or publicly investigate the sources of his billions and influence.

So what do we call Corruptistan's two political parties other than corrupt shields of systemic corruption? What if "party loyalty" is just another con to gain compliance for a system whose corruption is so profound that there's nothing left of either democracy or the rule of law?

Perhaps when we look back on the Epstein Affair, we'll understand that it broke the back of Americans' faith in their political and law enforcement institutions. A great many Americans are not party loyalists; they voted for Donald Trump as the independent "outsider" who vowed to clean house, an independent who used one of the parties as a convenient platform.

If even an "outsider" is incapable of cleaning house, then it's hopeless, and if the two parties have failed us, then where do we turn? That is both an open question, and a taboo, for the corporate media is already churning out narrative control about the 2028 election being a "contest" (heh) between flimsy cardboard cutouts of failed ideological covers for systemic corruption.

America's elites aren't above the law; there is no law. But don't say it out loud; it's an unbreakable taboo.

Of related interest: Epstein and the Explosive Crisis of the Deep State (July 15, 2019) Since the battle is for the legitimacy of the state, it must be waged at least partially in the open.

*  *  *

Check out my new book Ultra-Processed Life.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 10:30

UN Watchdog Chief Believes Inspectors Will Return To Iran This Year After Europe Meeting

UN Watchdog Chief Believes Inspectors Will Return To Iran This Year After Europe Meeting

Iranian diplomats have concluded talks with their European counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France on Friday to revive nuclear negotiations, amid warnings from the three European nations that they may activate the "snapback" UN sanctions mechanism outlined in the defunct 2015 nuclear agreement.

The Istanbul-hosted meeting lasted about four hours and marks the first such engagement since Israel's mid-June strikes on Iran, which triggered a 12-day conflict, at the end of which the US intervened on Israel's side and bombed three key nuclear facilities.

Throughout the June war, top Iranian military commanders, nuclear experts, and hundreds of civilians were killed. Iran has said its nuclear sites were 'destroyed' but still maintains the capability and "right" to enrich uranium for its domestic nuclear energy program.

Via Iran International

Following Friday’s talks, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who attended alongside senior diplomat Majid Takht-Ravanchi, described the discussions with the European powers as "serious, frank, and detailed".

The talks were focused on sanctions relief and nuclear concerns, which each side expressed willingness to continue the discussions.

Despite Iran recently booting IAEA nuclear inspectors from the country, the UN nuclear watchdog remains optimistic of the return of a monitoring regimen:

The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog is optimistic that inspectors will be able to return to Iran later this year, he said on Friday.

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told reporters that it was important to start discussing with Tehran the modalities of restarting visits.

"We need to agree on where to go, how to do it. We need to listen to Iran in terms of what they consider should be the precautions to be taken," he said. 

Meanwhile, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has once again warned that if "snapback" sanctions are reinstated, Iran would respond with punitive countermeasures, including the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NPT requires non-nuclear states to keep their nuclear activities strictly for peaceful, civilian use. Notably, Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons - possibly dozens or over one hundred - has not signed the treaty, and Tehran has long blasted this international hypocrisy.

Under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, Tehran committed to restricting its nuclear program to civilian purposes in return for the lifting of UN sanctions but the historic agreement included a "snapback" provision allowing for the reimposition of those sanctions if Iran is found to be in violation of the agreement. But after Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in April 2018, Iran has been saying essentially 'what deal?' ...and that Washington can no longer be trusted.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 08:45

Why'd Ghana Of All Countries Agree To Partially Finance Ukraine's Drone Program?

Why'd Ghana Of All Countries Agree To Partially Finance Ukraine's Drone Program?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Footing part of this bill in exchange for Ukrainian support for securing its borders is one of the costs that Ghana must pay as part of its involvement in the emerging anti-Russian regional coalition that plans to wage a protracted hybrid war against Moscow’s Sahelian Alliance/Confederation allies.

Zelensky announced after a call with his Ghanaian counterpart in early July that “Ghana is ready to finance our (drone) production, and we are ready to help our partners secure their borders.” This caught many observers by surprise since Ghana has a GDP per capita that’s a little less than half of Ukraine’s. It makes more sense though when one recalls that West Africa is one of the New Cold War’s fronts. Russia supports the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation while France, the US, and Ukraine support its opponents.

The last-mentioned trilateral’s backing of terrorist-designated Tuareg separatists in Mali and similarly designated Islamic radicals there, in Burkina Faso, and Niger has thus far failed to break up this bloc. That’s not to say that this subversion doesn’t stand a chance of succeeding, just that continued Russian security assistance makes it much more difficult than they expected. As a back-up plan, they’ve therefore preemptively sought out regional bases to facilitate a protracted hybrid war, ergo Ghana’s importance.

The Wall Street Journal reported as far back as January 2024 that “The U.S. is holding preliminary talks to allow American unarmed reconnaissance drones to use airfields in Ghana, Ivory Coast and Benin”. Nothing has yet to tangibly come from those talks, but the latest update from two months ago in May shows that the US decided to focus its efforts on Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast). Ghana is right next door, and both border the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation, so there’s a logic to Ukraine cultivating ties with it.

Seeing as how “Ukraine Has Been Presenting Itself As A Reliable Mercenary Force Against Russia In Africa” via its involvement in Sudan and Mali, the precedent is established for it doing the same in Burkina Faso, which is the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation member that borders Ghana. An estimated 40% of Burkina Faso is already under the control of terrorist groups, some of whom are reportedly infiltrating into Ghana and the Ivory Coast, so Kiev’s quid pro quo with Accra is semi-legitimate.

Nevertheless, given the abovementioned role that Ukraine has played vis-à-vis Russia in Africa at the US’ behest, it should also be taken for granted that this semi-legitimate deal will be exploited as the cover for the West to ramp up its hybrid war against the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation. Ukraine’s speculatively forthcoming clandestine base of operations in Ghana will focus on Burkina Faso while the US’ openly planned drone base in neighboring Ivory Coast will divide its focus between there and Mali.

The US and France will “Lead From Behind” by providing back-end support for the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Ukraine, who’ll advance their shared interests vis-à-vis the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation, thus doing the heavy lifting and bearing many of the costs. The Ivory Coast and Ghana equally fear terrorist spillovers and the scenario of Russian-inspired patriotic military coups, Ukraine has an axe to grind with Russia, while the US and France want to reverse regional multipolar trends.

This confluence of interests explains why Ghana of all countries agreed to partially finance Ukraine’s drone production since that’s one of the costs that it must pay as part of this coalition. Their deal serves as the anti-terrorist pretext for directly involving Ukrainian forces, whether conventional and/or unconventional (like GUR), in this planned hybrid war offensive against the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation’s southern front. Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger should thus brace for the worst.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 08:10

Earth Overshoot Day Is Coming Sooner And Sooner

Earth Overshoot Day Is Coming Sooner And Sooner

July 24 marked this year's Earth Overshoot Day, the day that humanity’s demand for ecological resources exceeds the resources Earth can regenerate within that year.

 Earth Overshoot Day Is Coming Sooner and Sooner | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Over the decades, the ecological footprint of humans has gradually increased, all while Earth’s biocapacity, i.e. its ability to regenerate resources has diminished significantly.

That has led to Earth Overshoot Day arriving earlier and earlier, moving from as late as December 31 in 1972 to mid-July in 2025 and previous years.

As Statista's Felix Richter reports, this year's date means that humanity is currently using nature's resources 1.8 times faster than ecosystems can regenerate. This includes people emitting more carbon dioxide than the biosphere can absorb, using more freshwater than can be replenished and other overuse of finite natural resources.

"Overshoot isn’t just the driver behind biodiversity loss, resource depletion, deforestation and the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which intensifies extreme weather events. It also fuels stagflation, food and energy insecurity, health crises, and conflict," the organization explains in the press release announcing this year's Earth Overshoot Day.

The last time Earth Overshoot Day moved backwards was in 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic stopped the world in its tracks, significantly reducing humanity's resource consumption and CO2 emissions. According to recalculations based on the latest available data and accounting methods, Overshoot Day fell on August 9 that year, but quickly bounced back to July 29 in 2021, when normality gradually returned in large parts of the world. For the past three years, Earth Overshoot Day stood still on July 25 before moving one day forward this year.

The concept of Earth Overshoot Day was first conceived by Andrew Simms of the UK think tank New Economics Foundation, which partnered with Global Footprint Network in 2006 to launch the first global Earth Overshoot Day campaign. WWF, the world’s largest conservation organization, has participated in Earth Overshoot Day since 2007.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 07:35

BlackRock & Fidelity In Collusion With The UK Government?

BlackRock & Fidelity In Collusion With The UK Government?

Authored by Alasdair Macleod via VonGreyerz.gold,

The Western World is Already In Recession

Subtract budget deficits from national GDPs, and private sector GDPs are shrinking. While government spending is creating more debt, the tax base to pay interest costs is contracting.

Some analysts are pointing out that private sector debt is declining and they conclude that lending risk is lower than commonly thought. An article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph (Wednesday, 16 July) by veteran journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was headed, “British debt is a screaming buy and Blackrock, Fidelity, and Schroders agree”.

As Evens-Pritchard points out, these financial megaliths are at odds with the sentiment in the gilt market, which must also be the case in other economies with a significant government borrowing requirement. It begs the question as to whether this story is planted in cooperation with the UK government, aware of a funding problem.

Conspiracy theory, maybe, but government disinformation is remarkably common. We must proceed with what we know in answering the question raised: Do you buy or sell government debt?

GDP tells a different story

To answer it, we must deconstruct GDP, changing our focus to the US economy, which is the one that really matters. The US budget deficit last year was 6.4% of nominal GDP. But nominal GDP growth was only 5.0%, meaning that the private sector must have contracted by 1.4%. In Q1 2025, nominal GDP increased at an annualised rate of 3.25%, yet the budget deficit is still over 6% and rising. Therefore, the private sector is contracting at an increased rate. In fact, adjusted for price inflation, real GDP actually contracted 0.5% on revised official estimates.

Obviously, nominal GDP is only growing due to the federal government’s excess spending over revenues. And because GDP is no more than a credit figure, credit deployed by the private sector is actually contracting. It reflects not only overall economic activity in the private sector but is a net figure encompassing changes in savings rates, bank credit, business start-ups and closures, and debt write-offs. The FRED chart below illustrates the reduction of bank credit for non-financial private sector lending as a proportion of the total economy.

The US savings rate has declined to less than 1% of total consumption, while debt write-offs have risen. But the big change is in banks redeploying their balance sheets away from the non-financial private sector, in a trend which dates back to the Lehman crisis and particularly Q1 of 2021.

The situation of the UK economy differs in its particulars but in their aggregate the situation is similar. Other major economies with government budget deficits piling on more debt sustaining the illusion of private sector growth include the entire G7.

So far, I have described the situation represented by official statistics, which only look backwards with questionable reliability. Looking ahead, we can be certain that President Trump’s tariff policies are creating uncertainty, and when they are finally fixed, they will impact global business activity negatively. Not only is this logical, but it is confirmed by the evidence that followed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which, coupled with contracting private sector credit following the roaring twenties, collapsed the US economy and spread the slump globally.

Does that combination ring any alarm bells yet?

It is a racing certainty that Trump’s tariffs will have the same consequences as the Smoot-Hawley Act, the degree to which will be revealed in the coming months. Furthermore, with US and global credit fuelling stock prices, 2025 is looking increasingly like 1929, also confirmed by the level of lending for speculative purposes recorded by FINRA.

Private sector economies already in recession will almost certainly descend further into slump territory. The consequences for government revenues are bound to be catastrophic. Debt-to-GDP metrics for all G7 nations will go through the roof as both borrowing soars and their GDPs decline.

This brings us back to the question posed at the beginning of this article: Do you buy or sell government debt?

From our analysis of the outlook, by the end of this year, the volume of G7 government debt issuance will be rising sharply. But worse than that, the theoretical underpinnings of tax receipts are already going into reverse, meaning that government debt and its interest cost are rising at an accelerating pace while the tax revenues to fund them are contracting. It is the classic definition of debt traps.

It is small wonder that government bond yields have risen, breaking a long-term trend going back to the 1980s, the implications of which must not be ignored:

Macroeconomic analysis gets it wrong

Neo-Keynesians and monetarists believe that in a recession, prices decline as a result of falling demand. For some goods and services this may be true, but it ignores the fact that supply contracts as well. Nevertheless, these macro-economists believe that inflation will fall in these recessionary times, so that the outlook is for lower interest rates. This is an egregious error, as current inflation trends avow.

The problem is in government debt traps. Nowhere is the problem more acute than for the US and its dollars. Already, there are funding problems evident for issues with distant maturities. The Fed is planning to reduce the level of capital the large banks have to reserve in the form of the supplementary leverage ratio, so that they can expand their credit in favour of treasury bills. This is desperate stuff.

Clearly, it is perceptions of currency risk which are driving government bond yields, not assumptions that central banks continue to control interest rates and bond yields. Initially, it is a concern for foreign holders of dollars and underlying financial instruments and investments totalling some $40 trillion, one-third more than US GDP.

Those perceptions are bound to spread from foreign investors to domestic institutions, who will realise that if the Fed is forced to reduce interest rates in the event of a domestic financial and economic crisis, then the dollar will fall in its purchasing power. Central banks, predominantly in Asia, already see this probability and have been adjusting their reserves by selling fiat currencies for the safe haven of gold.

Above all, this is the end game for fiat currencies. It is not so much gold rising, but the prospects for the dollar and the entire fiat currency system deteriorating at an accelerating pace.

And as for Blackrock, Fidelity, and Schroders saying gilts are a screaming buy, I can only conclude that they are deliberately misleading us or are Keynesian fools.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/27/2025 - 07:00

Bovard: Waco, Epstein, & Washington's War On Truth

Bovard: Waco, Epstein, & Washington's War On Truth

Submitted by James Bovard

How many atrocities can the federal government get away with? Americans are still vexed by the answers that Congress failed to deliver in 1995. Thirty summers ago, Washington was fixated by a Capitol Hill showdown over the greatest federal abuse of power of the decade.

Unfortunately, trusting congressional hearings to discover the truth is like trusting a roomful of monkeys with typewriters to write great novels—it might happen, but only in an eternity. As comedian Milton Berle quipped long ago, “You can send a man to Congress but you can’t make him think.”

On February 28, 1993, scores of federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents launched an attack on the home of the Branch Davidians. The ATF’s lead investigator had previously rejected an offer to peacefully search the Davidians’ home for firearms violations. Four ATF agents and six Davidians were killed in the fracas that day.

The FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team took over the scene and 59 days later, FBI tanks collapsed much of the Davidians’ ramshackle dwelling while heavily gassing the women, children, and men inside the building and nearby shelter. A fire erupted and 76 corpses were dug out of the rubble. The Clinton administration had begun a cover-up long before the final assault. (Check out Scott Horton’s superb thirtieth anniversary podcast series on Waco as well as plenty of zesty articles on this website.)

On the evening of the Waco fire, Attorney General Janet Reno went on Nightline and announced, “I made the decision. I’m accountable. The buck stops with me.” Reno then asserted that the fiery end was all somebody else’s fault: “I don’t think anybody has ever dealt with a David Koresh, who would purposely set people afire in that number.” Nightline host Ted Koppel asked Reno why the feds used “tanks to ram the compound down.” Reno replied, “I think that what we were trying to do was to give everybody an opportunity to come out in the most unobtrusive way possible, not with a frontal assault.” Because she had a lofty federal job title, nobody called out her “unobtrusive” 54-ton tank BS.

Snap polls just after the Waco fire showed that the American people overwhelmingly supported the FBI assault. A few days after the fire, the opening of a congressional appropriations committee hearing had to be delayed so senators could have their pictures taken with Attorney General Reno, who became a national hero for her “the buck stops with me” pretense.

Reno received a different reception from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) when she testified at a House hearing. Reno cried when Conyers berated her for authorizing the final assault. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh, reflecting the conservative idolization of law enforcement, slammed Conyers for being disrespectful to Reno and accused him of grandstanding. Perhaps the most honest statement of congressional sentiment came from Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Brooks declared that the Davidians were “horrible people. Despicable people. Burning to death was too good for them.”

In November 1994, Republicans captured control of Congress. On the second anniversary of the final FBI assault at Waco, a truck bomb killed more than 170 people at a federal office building in Oklahoma City. When news of that atrocity hit, a top New York op-ed editor told his colleagues, “These are Jim Bovard’s friends!” Waco had become a rallying cry for folks who distrusted Washington, creating new pressure to expose federal wrongdoing. In a May 1995 Wall Street Journal piece headlined, “Waco Must Get a Hearing,” I warned, “The ghosts of Waco will continue to haunt the U.S. government until the truth is told about what the government did and why.” I also hammered the Waco coverup in the The New RepublicWashington Times, and other publications.

After two House committees scheduled joint hearings for July, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) denounced holding any hearings: “It’s pandering to a paranoid fringe in America that wants to believe that Waco was a conspiracy.” Treasury Undersecretary Ron Noble warned that extremists might view the hearings “and decide to blow up some other building.” After the main hearings began, President Bill Clinton condemned them as part of a Republican “war on police,” and declared that “there is no moral equivalence between the disgusting acts which took place inside that compound in Waco and the efforts law enforcement officers made to protect the lives of innocent people.” The Treasury Department mass-faxed a letter from Secretary Robert Rubin warning journalists that federal action at Waco “cannot be understood properly outside the context of Oklahoma City.” An alleged truck bomber invoking Waco in 1995 miraculously vindicated the feds killing American citizens in 1993.

The hearings exposed how vast amounts of the key documentation and videotapes vanished in the maw of federal agencies. The ATF claimed it never had a formal, written raid plan prior to launching the largest military-style attack in the agency’s history. Apparently no ATF agents made written statements after a raid in which four ATF agents died. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) observed, “It’s very unusual that nobody connected with this debacle made a written statement. I think that classifies as a unique event in the history of law enforcement.” The Treasury Department quickly recognized that ATF agents’ statements could blight or destroy any federal court case against surviving Davidians; agency bosses were paranoid of creating exculpatory evidence that would expose ATF outrages.

Congressional Democrats rushed to dehumanize the government’s victims. The toxic gas that may have killed dozens of children on April 19 was a volatile issue for the hearing. Though CS gas previously killed dozens of children in the Gaza Strip, Democrats portrayed it as innocuous as a Flintstone vitamin. Benjamin Garrett, executive director the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, observed that the CS gas “would have panicked the children. Their eyes would have involuntarily shut. Their skin would have been burning. They would have been gasping for air and coughing wildly. Eventually, they would have been overcome with vomiting in a final hell.” Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM) declared that “no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death…I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.”

The confidential FBI report that Janet Reno received before approving the attack stated that the impact of the CS gas on “infants and children cannot be ignored because gas masks are not available for infants and younger children.” When Reno testified on the final day, Committee Chairman Rep. John Mica (R–FL) presented her with a gas mask to illustrate that it could not have fit children. Reno casually tossed the mask on the floor and announced that “it’s not very helpful, in terms of trying to understand what happened there, to just show gas masks. We’ve got to show the people what went into the process.” Mica told me that even if the children didn’t die directly from the CS gas, “we sure as hell tortured them for six hours before they died.” (See my 2023 photo of the vault where women and children were gassed.)

The gaudy grandeur of the House Judiciary Committee hearing room could not disguise a vast moral and mental wasteland. Most of the committee members were absent for most of the hearings. The rules seemed crafted to deter disclosing facts that would embarrass officialdom. Each congressman received only five minutes to question witnesses per round of questioning (which could last hours). Witnesses knew that the more they blathered, the less they’d need to disclose. Many Republicans groveled before the FBI officials they were supposed to be cross-examining—as if the G-men could give absolution to any politician who doubted their holy status. The typical congressman’s idea of oversight of law enforcement is to assure that he is included in photo opportunities after federal busts in his home district. “How are you so great and how can we help you?” is the usual response when the FBI director testifies on Capitol Hill, as Guardian columnist Trevor Timm noted.

The five-minute rule exemplified the pro forma pursuit of truth in Washington. Hearing co-chairman Bill McCullom (R-FL) repeatedly cut off Republican members following vital lines of questioning, rescuing one fabricating federal agent after another. At the end of the hearings, Schumer—who did everything except call for the public hanging of  the surviving Davidians—praised McCullom for his bipartisan spirit, and McCullom beamed like a cocker spaniel.

A few Republican congressmen doggedly pushed federal officials for the hard facts. But near the end of the hearings, one Republican staffer complained to me that the Republican “members were real pansies this morning” in their questioning of federal witnesses. Many Republican congressmen lacked the courage to challenge any federal agent. Few members of Congress could ask intelligent follow-ups because all they knew was the specific question or two aides had printed on a piece of paper for them to recite. Jason Whiting, press spokesman for Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), observed, “We didn’t really want to use any of the questions the committee prepared. Not only were the questions soft, but they weren’t well planned. There were stacks and stacks of [confidential] documents that went untouched.”

At one point during the hearings, I went to the committee’s Republican staff room to get a copy of an earlier statement from a Republican member. Sitting at the entrance desk was a twenty-something blond haired dude with a cowlick. He was swiveling in his chair and looking slightly bored yet immensely proud of his title—“legislative assistant.”

The Clinton administration had delayed turning over Waco-related records to Republicans until the week before the hearings began. Dozens of legal-type boxes were stacked on desks and on the floor.

I asked whether this was the documentation from the FBI and other agencies. The young guy nodded, glanced over his shoulder at the boxes, and lamented, “We don’t know what to do with them.”

“Have you thought about reading them?” I replied.

The staffer shrugged, sighed, and wondered how soon I would cease darkening their doorway.

Republican congressmen were shooting blanks while here was an ammo cache that could have blown half the witnesses through the roof. Unfortunately, reading is the only unnatural act on Capitol Hill. I salivated just looking at those boxes but knew I’d never be permitted to delve into this treasure trove. (The average House member spent less than twelve minutes a day reading on the job, according to an earlier congressional survey.)

I usually avoided sitting at the hearing room tables reserved for the press. Some reporters saw the hearings as an outbreak by right-wing Know-Nothings—a new McCarthyite inquisition, with Janet Reno and the FBI as victims. Some “Step ‘n Fetch It” journalists were willing to pick up and print anything that a Clinton administration official scattered at their feet.

But there were some hardline exceptions to the prevailing docility. I had lunch a time or two with Jim Pate, a reporter from North Carolina who was working as a consultant for ABC News. Pate would be summoned to testify at the Timothy McVeigh trial because McVeigh had several Soldier of Fortune magazines with Pate’s Waco articles in his car when he was arrested. I bantered several times with Mike McNulty, a gun rights zealot who was later the co-producer (along with Dan Gifford and William Gazecki) of the movie Waco: Rules of Engagement, which won an Emmy and was an Oscar finalist for best documentary.

After ten days of hearings, most of the congressmen finally recognized that the ATF and FBI were different federal agencies. But that was the limit of the learning curve for some of those politicians. The grand finale of the Waco Follies was the August 1 testimony of Janet Reno.

Republicans squandered hours trying to get Reno to admit that the FBI’s final assault was approved by the White House. The New York Times reported that Republicans “seemed to lose their focus gradually as they unsuccessfully tried to force Ms. Reno to acknowledge that she had erred.” But most Republicans did not have any focus to lose. Reno dodged key questions and used enough complete sentences to awe the Washington press corps.

Rep. Shadegg challenged Reno as to why tanks had repeatedly smashed into the compound during the final assault. Reno responded by claiming that the tanks’ entry into the building (via demolishing the walls and 25% of the compound) had merely been an “inadvertent crushing of a back support.” Shadegg burst out laughing and noted that FBI tanks had “inadvertently” smashed into the compound eight different times. The FBI plan for the tank assault specifically called for the destruction of the building—regardless of whether occupants exited. Reno’s claim that the tanks’ destruction of much of the building was “inadvertent” was either feeble perjury or gross stupidity, though it was often difficult to tell the difference with Clinton administration appointees.

Rep. Bill Zeliff (R-NH) pushed Reno on the use of 54-ton tanks to smash into a building that she knew was occupied by women and children. Zeliff asked, “When military weapons are turned on American people, who makes that decision?”

Reno replied that she didn’t consider the tanks as a military vehicle—instead, they were “like a good rent-a-car.” Her comment reflected the Clinton administration’s view that Waco was a routine law enforcement effort, except for the number of toe tags needed afterwards.

I showcased Reno’s rent-a-tank line in a Wall Street Journal piece the following day that detailed how the hearings shattered the government’s credibility on Waco. My article concluded:

“The evidence of a coverup and gross federal misconduct is far stronger in the Waco hearings than in the Whitewater investigation. The Republican leadership in Congress should seize upon the recent revelations to demand a special counsel to be appointed to investigate possible federal crimes and coverups regarding Waco.”

My article may have been the only piece in the national media that skewered Reno’s bizarre exoneration of the military assault on American citizens.   

The Clinton administration correctly predicted that House Republicans would not have the courage to have a second round of hearings to deal with questions raised or information withheld in the July hearings. White House officials ridiculed GOP congressmen as “Branch Republicans” due to their supposed failure to find a smoking gun.

In July 1996, the House Republicans released their official findings from their investigation of Waco. According to Republican congressional leaders, a key lesson of Waco was that the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team should be expanded. Congress had already sharply increased the FBI budget.

At a sparsely-attended press conference in the House press gallery, I asked whether federal agencies had “fully opened their doors” to congressional investigators. Rep. Zeliff, the co-chairman of the committee, replied, “Not totally… We couldn’t get any information from the Department of Defense… We didn’t get all the information we were looking for” from other agencies, either. I was stunned by the Winnie the Pooh “oh bother” response to the Pentagon’s Waco stonewall. Congress controlled the Pentagon’s budget and a simple rider could have been added to an appropriations bill compelling disclosure of any Waco-related Pentagon evidence.

The Clinton administration swayed the media to portray Waco as a battle of good versus evil—with the feds as the saviors, naturally. The Clinton team pulled off that con thanks to the failure of congressional investigators to timely find and reveal evidence that would have utterly obliterated all federal credibility. Respectable opinion—at least in Washington—lapsed to pretending no Waco debacle had occurred. The Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia created a special award to honor the nation’s first female attorney general: the Janet Reno Torchbearer Award. The first recipient, in 1997, was Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; the award was presented by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Shortly after the hearings ended, former federal lawyer David Hardy began hounding ATF with Freedom of Information Act requests. In 1999, Hardy received documents revealing that nine days before the February 28, 1993 raid, ATF agents invited David Koresh to go target shooting. They had a fine time, with Koresh providing the ammo and the ATF agents allowing Koresh to fire their guns. Koresh strongly suspected the guys were undercover feds but went shooting with them anyhow. One ATF participant wrote a memo to headquarters on the shooting party and noted that “Mr. Koresh stated that he believed that every person had the right to own firearms and protect their homes.” With such crazy ideas, the feds had no choice but to destroy Koresh. If Americans had learned during the hearings that the ATF had scorned an ideal opportunity to easily arrest Koresh, ATF credibility never would have recovered.

In 1999, film maker and private investigator Mike McNulty discovered shell casings in a Texas Ranger evidence locker that proved the FBI had fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians prior to the fatal fire. That discovery nuked the Clinton administration’s perpetual denials that the FBI had any role in starting the conflagration. The FBI was caught in a massive cover-up; Newsweek reported that “as many as 100 FBI agents and officials may have known about” the military-style pyrotechnic explosive devices used by the FBI at Waco.

Republican congressmen momentarily pretended to be indignant about the fresh revelations of FBI perfidy. But, a few weeks later, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) declared that Republicans were suffering from “Waco fatigue…There’s a feeling that the political risk may be higher than the political gain of pursuing this subject at this time.” The only “fatigue” most congressmen experienced was the nuisance of responding to constituents who believed that their representative should give a damn. The Republican leadership decided that the “risk” of pursuing more Waco disclosures outweighed the political profits—without even knowing what new investigations might discover. Besides, they were too busy with their Bill Clinton panty chases to pay attention to how American citizens were being oppressed by Washington.

I thought Waco should have been the most important education lesson of the 1990s for our nation. But the real lesson was: Truth delayed is truth defused. Congressional failures on Waco vivify the folly of expecting checks and balances in Washington to protect the Constitution.

Waco exemplified the Capitol Hill version of “Attention Deficit Democracy”—congressmen clueless and careless about the atrocities they bankrolled. That near-total default foreshadowed similar congressional pratfalls on the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and the bombing of Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, et.al. “Oversight” is a polite term for rote congressional procedures designed to avoid discovering embarrassing information. A senior House Republican admitted in 2004, “Our party controls the levers of government. We’re not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to cause heartburn.”

During the Joe Biden administration, congressional oversight became completely depraved. The Select Committee to investigate the January 6 [2021] Attack on the U.S. Capitol was so skewed that those members of Congress chose to destroy “evidence” they had gathered during their kangaroo court effort to vilify anyone who protested at the Capitol. The January 6 Committee was the first congressional oversight effort that required a presidential pardon to absolve everyone involved—including the committee members, all the staffers, and all the Capitol Police and DC police who testified.

The failure of congressional oversight exemplifies why “Leviathan Democracy” is a fatal contradiction in terms. Once the government becomes so vast, elected representatives become increasingly inept or unwilling to pull in the reins. Members of Congress rise to the top by championing the worst abuses that federal agencies inflict. Congressmen are proud to receive the Agency Seal Medal from the Central Intelligence Agency as a reward for covering up CIA crimes. In 2017, Georgetown University Professor P.G. Eddington, a former CIA official, lamented “the House Intelligence Committee’s slow degeneration from overseer to cheerleader of surveillance” over the previous quarter century.

If Congress ignored the federal role in killing scores of women and children, what are the chances that current members of Congress could show the courage to expose a child sex abuse scandal that could incriminate some of the nation’s biggest political donors?  Perhaps it is time for Las Vegas to offer betting odds on the triumph of decency in Washington.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 23:20

Five Crucial Facts From The House Intel Report On 2016 Russian Interference

Five Crucial Facts From The House Intel Report On 2016 Russian Interference

Authored by Fred Fleitz via American Greatness,

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did an excellent service to our nation this week when she released a declassified version of a critical September 2020 House Intelligence Committee staff report on a major January 2017 intelligence report, known as an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.”

Gabbard’s decision came after a years-long tug-of-war over the release of this report between Republican members of Congress who believe it provides critical information about the Russia collusion hoax and the involvement of Obama officials and the U.S. Intelligence Community versus Democratic congressmen and deep state intelligence officials who have desperately tried to hide this report from the American public.

Press accounts have reported most of the essential details of the House report, such as how it was rushed out on President Obama’s orders to be published just before Trump’s first inauguration in January 2017. Media stories have also detailed how substandard intelligence was used to justify the ICA’s finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win and that this bad intelligence was included on the orders of CIA Director John Brennan over the objections of senior CIA analysts. The media has also reported the House Intelligence report’s finding that a hand-picked group of five analysts wrote the ICA and that it was not adequately vetted by U.S. intelligence agencies and analysts. It is also clear in the House report that, despite numerous statements by Brennan denying it, the fraudulent Steele dossier was heavily used in the ICA.

I am very familiar with the House Intelligence Committee report. I was permitted to read a classified version of the report when I served as Chief of Staff of the National Security Council in August 2018. I also discussed efforts by the White House to pressure the CIA to release the report a month before the 2020 presidential election with the late Lou Dobbs. This reportedly included President Trump visiting the CIA to retrieve the report personally.

Based on my understanding of this issue, here are five key points about the House Intelligence Committee report that most Americans may not be aware of.

1. The House Intelligence Committee report is a credible and carefully drafted paper. 

Although the House report was written by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican staff, its fairness and balance are a credit to its authors and then-Chairman Devin Nunes.

The report says on page 1 that committee investigators spent over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports and interviewed 20 intelligence and FBI officers. Its conclusions reflect objectivity and would not be found in a biased, partisan report. For example, the House report concedes at the beginning that the ICA’s finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and to weaken an inevitable Clinton presidency used proper intelligence tradecraft. However, the House report took issue with the ICA’s distortions of intelligence tradecraft standards to assess that Putin had a clear preference for Trump to win and “aspired to help his chances of victory.”

The House Intelligence report also includes strong, nonpartisan recommendations, including a call for political appointees of outgoing administrations to recuse themselves from any involvement in intelligence reports drafted in the future under similar circumstances.

I spoke with the two principal authors of the House report after I read it in August 2018. I found them to be professional and knowledgeable. They answered all my questions and provided me with additional information that was not in the report. A CIA official told me earlier this month that one of the authors had been retained by the Agency to prepare the report for release. 

2. The Republican House report is more credible than a similar bipartisan Senate report. 

The authors of the House Intelligence Committee report told me they believed their report, written by the committee’s Republican staff, was more credible than a bipartisan report would be because many of the CIA officers they interviewed would not have spoken to a bipartisan investigation team. The reason was that Democratic staff and members of a bipartisan investigation might inform agency management about which agency officers had spoken to committee investigators, potentially leading to retaliation. I agree and believe this is why recent attempts by liberal reporters and Democratic congressmembers to use a similar bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee issued in April 2020 to discredit the House Intelligence Committee report are not credible.

3. The ICA omitted intelligence that Putin may have wanted Clinton to win the 2016 election. 

Many press reports about the House Intelligence Committee report focused on how weak and fragmentary intelligence was used to support the ICA’s assessment that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. However, the House report also notes that the ICA ignored two significant alternative hypotheses suggested by the intelligence and Russian behavior: that Putin either did not care who won the 2016 election or wanted Hillary Clinton to win.

The House report said some of the omitted intelligence analysis indicated that Putin did not have a preference in the election outcome because both Trump and Clinton would be bad for Russia and unlikely to improve relations.

Also notable was the omitted analysis that Putin may have wanted Clinton to win the 2016 election because she would be a more vulnerable president than Trump and Russia had a reserve of compromising materials to use against Clinton but not Trump. Similarly, the House report also noted that the ICA did not address that Moscow viewed Clinton as a weaker candidate due to Russian intelligence reporting on her psychological health. In addition, the House report said the timing and content of Russian operational orders “indicated that Moscow assumed they had unique leverage over Secretary Clinton that would be more useful if she won the election.”

On the other hand, the House report said some senior Russian officials worried that a Trump administration would have a hardline national security team hostile to Russia. The report also quoted a redacted Russian source who “cautioned about the risks to Russia of a Republican administration, noting that ‘those who would hold positions in a Trump administration should he win will likely adhere to conservative anti-Russia positions.’”

4. The House Intelligence Committee report was stuck for years in the “turducken safe” at the CIA for political reasons and due to CIA Director Gina Haspel’s inept and partisan leadership. 

Although the House report was completed by the summer of 2018 and considered an important and damning indictment of the Obama administration and U.S. intelligence agencies for politicizing intelligence to promote the Russia collusion hoax, House Republicans and the Trump White House were unable to convince CIA Director Gina Haspel to declassify and clear the report for release to the public.

Then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes sent the report to the CIA for clearance in the summer of 2018. The CIA dragged its feet in clearing the report and failed to do so before Nunes lost the committee chairmanship in January 2019, due to the Democrats winning control of the House in the 2018 election. After Congressman Adam Schiff succeeded Nunes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA refused to clear the report because Nunes was no longer the chairman and Schiff would not sign off on Nunes’s release request.

Because of the confusing politics and competing jurisdictions over the House report, it was kept at the CIA in a safe within a safe, leading the New York Times to call this the “turducken safe”—a gun box-like container controlled by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican members and located inside a CIA vault. The House Intelligence Committee’s Republican members refused to grant Democratic committee members access to their safe or allow them to review the report.

Haspel and NSA Director Paul Nakasone also objected to releasing the report, claiming it would reveal sensitive intelligence. In addition, Haspel and Nakasone reportedly opposed releasing the House report because they asserted it contained unverified information and “cherry-picked” intelligence. Democratic congressmembers also strongly opposed the release of the House Republican report. In opposing the report’s release in late 2020, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff charged that the report sought to whitewash Russia’s election interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Regardless of how ardently Haspel and Nakasone held their positions opposing the release of the House report, because the president is ultimately in charge of all U.S. intelligence and classification decisions, their refusal to cooperate with White House orders to release the report was, in my opinion, insubordination to a U.S. president. Moreover, DNI Gabbard’s action this week proved there were no valid national security reasons not to release a declassified version of this report.

5. President Trump and his senior White House staff regarded the House intelligence report as so crucial that Trump reportedly considered going to the CIA before the 2020 election to retrieve and release the report himself. 

According to my sources at the White House and the House Intelligence Committee, the White House believed in the fall of 2020 that it was crucial for the American people to read this House report before the November 2020 presidential election.

The White House ordered CIA Director Haspel to release the report before the election. She refused.

I received a phone call about this matter in late October 2020 from Lou Dobbs, the host of the Fox Business Network show “Lou Dobbs Tonight” and a close friend of President Trump. I often appeared on Dobbs’ show as a former CIA analyst. He called to consult with me about a possible trip by President Trump to CIA headquarters to retrieve the House Intelligence Committee report so he could release it. I told Dobbs that I feared this would not work because CIA Director Haspel would learn about the president’s visit in advance and hide the inner safe containing the report before he arrived. Dobbs agreed with me and said he would convey this to President Trump. Trump’s alleged visit to the CIA to seize the House report never took place.

I would like to again thank Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for finally releasing the House Intelligence Committee’s critical report on how President Obama, senior Obama officials, and intelligence officials were responsible for issuing a rigged and politicized intelligence assessment just before Donald Trump’s first inauguration to destroy his presidency. This fraudulent intelligence report hounded Trump throughout his first term and contributed to his first sham impeachment in 2019. This perversion of U.S. intelligence also did grave damage to the objectivity and trustworthiness of America’s intelligence agencies, from which they still have not recovered.

It is my sincere hope that the declassified House Intelligence Committee report and other documents on the Russia collusion hoax released by DNI Gabbard and CIA Director Ratcliffe will lead to prosecutions of those involved and congressional hearings that ensure accountability and to send a strong message to future administration officials and intelligence officers that if they participate in another scheme to weaponize American intelligence to meddle in U.S. politics or to destroy a presidency, there will be severe consequences.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 22:10

Nike And American Eagle Confirm The Overton Window Shift

Nike And American Eagle Confirm The Overton Window Shift

One of the clearest and most recent tests of the Overton Window's positioning, what society currently deems acceptable, came last week with two major ad campaigns from Nike and American Eagle. Unlike the backlash faced by Bud Light or Jaguar for pushing controversial leftist propaganda, these two brands steered away from woke landmines and promoted either a pro-family theme or actress Sydney Sweeney. 

To begin the week, Nike posted a pro-family ad featuring pro-golfer Scottie Scheffler's win at the 2025 British Open at Royal Portrush on Sunday. Nike's marketing department released a highly unusual ad ... not the usual left-wing politics or 'body positivity' nonsense, but a pro-family sports ad celebrating fatherhood and family.

Based Americans, not infected with the Marxist woke mind virus, cheered online, with many demanding more pro-family ads and less "woke BS" ads

By Thursday, American Eagle Outfitters' marketing department clearly understood what Americans wanted, and it debuted actress Sydney Sweeney, or rather her two most important assets, which were highlighted... repeatedly in a new ad.

Investors cheered as AEO shares rose 16.5% on the week, while the internet was thrilled "to see a beautiful woman in an advertisement instead of freaks." 

Why these two ads matter: The Overton Window helps explain how figures like President Trump, Elon Musk's X, and alternative media have shattered the leftist censorship matrix that unleashed a decade of cultural Marxism—an era marked by division and a relentless push of woke and beta males drinking soy milk. It's as if the entire woke movement was designed to sabotage society from within. That era is likely over. And we marked this inflection point in recent quarters: 

What happened in the ad world last week: 

The broader takeaway is this: the Overton Window, once artificially held to the left, snapped back last year toward the center-right. This realignment coincides with the tail end of the Fourth Turning—likely concluding in the early 2030s—and the Trump administration's efforts to purge the 'woke mind virus' from federal agencies and the military. Corporate America is also abandoning wokeism in favor of just normal advertising. In short, the cultural Marxists' plan to collapse the nation from within has hit a significant roadblock. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is unraveling, its green movement in shambles, its base flirting with socialism and Marxism, and its polling numbers sinking to historic lows...

Nature is healing. The era of walking on eggshells over what you're allowed to say in public has come to a crashing end. Liberated from the woke mind matrix. 

And by the way, Volvo was way ahead of everyone... watch here. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 21:35

5 Things To Know About Trump Admin's Settlement With Columbia University

5 Things To Know About Trump Admin's Settlement With Columbia University

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times,

Under the agreement reached between President Donald Trump and Columbia University regarding campus anti-Semitism, the Ivy League school will pay a $200 million fine to regain its eligibility for future federal money.

The July 23 settlement follows months of discussions between the two sides after Trump froze $400 million in federal grants to the school and accused its leaders of failing to address the harassment of Jewish students and campus disruptions.

Now, the Trump administration is hoping this deal establishes a model for other colleges and universities to follow.

Opponents in academia, meanwhile, championed Harvard University—the nation’s oldest—for its fight against the federal government.

Here are five takeaways from the settlement:

How It Came to This

Regular campus disruptions ensued after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, including pro-Palestinian protests and encampments that lasted for months, clashes with police, and the illegal occupation and vandalism of the campus building Hamilton Hall. The university canceled its main commencement ceremony last year due to safety concerns brought on by protesters.

Dozens of students were suspended, and nine were expelled. Columbia President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik resigned in August 2024 amid criticism of how she responded to campus protests. The alleged student ringleader, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and given deportation orders.

The Trump administration initially issued Columbia a ultimatum threatening to hold $5 billion in federal funding, but only froze $400 million as Education Secretary Linda McMahon and university administrators discussed corrective measures.

Shafik’s replacement, interim President Katrina Armstrong, stepped down on March 28, after McMahon announced that Columbia would comply with her demands.

In June, McMahon informed Columbia officials that because of Civil Rights violations, the school failed to meet federal accreditation standards, threatening the university’s reputation as an Ivy League institution and eligibility for student loans.

Discussions between interim Columbia President Claire Shipman and federal officials ensued. The agreement was reached weeks later.

Other Terms of the Agreement

Columbia will pay $20 million to Jewish employees harassed by co-workers or students at the university. Additionally, the settlement requires that hiring practices be based on merit and not race or gender, in accordance with Civil Rights laws.

The university will allow the federal government to review its Middle Eastern studies major and other programs and must hire faculty members who are committed to “intellectual diversity,” according to the White House’s July 24 fact sheet on the settlement.

University admissions officers will more carefully scrutinize applications from international students, share data on foreign students with the federal government, and reduce financial dependence “on overwhelming international student enrollment,” the fact sheet said.

Masked protests on campus will be prohibited, and Columbia will work closely with the New York Police Department if additional enforcement measures are needed. Student disciplinary measures will be handled by the university’s provost’s office instead of a faculty senate panel, according to the fact sheet.

“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon said in a July 23 statement.

How Other Ivy League Schools Fared

A White House official confirmed in April that the administration had frozen $1 billion in federal funding to Cornell University following an investigation into Civil Rights violations on that campus.

In March, the administration froze an undisclosed amount of federal funds at Princeton University following an investigation of anti-Semitism there, according to a campus-wide email from President Christopher Eisgruber published by the student newspaper.

A week later, the federal Commerce Department cut $4 million of funding for Princeton University’s climate program, stating that it “fosters fears rather than rational, balanced discussion” and “promotes exaggerated and implausible climate threats,” which doesn’t align with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s objectives, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced.

The University of Pennsylvania announced earlier this month that it has complied with the administration’s demands following a Title IX investigation dating back to 2022, when a male identifying as transgender won an NCAA women’s swimming championship.

The athlete, Lia Thomas, was stripped of medals and records gained in women’s events, and the university was required to send a written apology to every swimmer who competed against Thomas. The school is to prohibit males from competing in female athletic programs or occupying women’s bathrooms or locker rooms.

Harvard was cited for anti-Semitism and continuing DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) practices, which the administration said are discriminatory and illegal.

The administration froze billions in federal funding, prompting a lawsuit from Harvard, which called the move unconstitutional and a violation of free speech. Proceedings in that federal court case are underway.

Trump also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and moved to end the university’s visa program for foreign students, resulting in an additional lawsuit. A federal judge blocked that executive action.

On June 20 and again on July 25, Trump indicated that Harvard is interested in a resolution but provided no details on a settlement.

What Critics Are Saying

The American Association of University Professors union, which represents about 45,000 higher education professionals across the country, said Columbia’s decision sets “an extremely dangerous precedent that will have tremendous consequences for the sector.”

“For higher education to function, students and faculty must be free to think and speak their minds,” Todd Wolfson, association president, said in an email response to The Epoch Times. “Students, faculty, and all who care about higher education must stand up and fight back against this unprecedented continuing assault. We have no choice.”

In her July 23 statement, Columbia’s Shipman maintained that the agreement was carefully crafted to safeguard its independence while also protecting “the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track.”

The Fight Presses On

Columbia’s settlement acknowledges that campus reforms will protect Jewish students and faculty, but it “does not admit to wrongdoing,” according to the university’s July 23 statement.

After these sanctions, the resignation of college presidents, and nine congressional hearings in less than two years, Republican leaders remain skeptical that U.S. higher education is serious about implementing permanent measures to combat anti-Semitism.

During the July 15 House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing, University of California–Berkeley Chancellor Richard Lyons said his school’s Palestinian Arab studies program chair, who was cited for apparantly praising the Hamas terrorist attack on social media, is “a fine scholar.”

City University of New York Chancellor Felix Rodriguez acknowledged that a current CUNY employee who had previously served as the organization’s chief diversity officer had worked for an organization with ties to Hamas.

Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-N.Y.) response: “This individual is not going to be fired because it’s all words, no action. You have failed the people of New York. You have failed Jewish students in New York State, and it is a disgrace.”

Harvard, meanwhile, has not expressed any interest in a settlement like Columbia’s.

John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, said while Trump’s critics in this matter cling to the argument that the administration violated Harvard’s right to free speech, the president is following civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination by race, gender, or religion.

Regardless of how this case ends, the federal government can deny future grants, Shu told The Epoch Times. In addition, it can restrict admission to foreign students, on whom Harvard relies to pay full tuition and fees.

“Even if Harvard wins the instant case,” Shu said, “that doesn’t end its problems.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 21:00

These Are The World's Fastest Growing Jobs

These Are The World's Fastest Growing Jobs

Fueled by the rise of artificial intelligence and automation, the global job market is undergoing a major transformation.

To learn more about this trend, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu visualized the 15 fastest growing jobs projected from 2025 to 2030, drawing on a global survey of employers.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025. It forecasts net job growth between 2025 and 2030, based on a survey containing 1,043 unique responses by global companies, collectively representing more than 14.1 million employees worldwide.

Big Data and AI Roles Are the Fastest Growing Jobs

At the top of the list are Big Data Specialists, expected to grow by 110% by 2030. They’re followed by FinTech Engineers (95%) and AI and Machine Learning Specialists (85%).

This signals an urgent demand for professionals who can build and manage AI systems and extract insights from massive data sets.

Software and Cybersecurity Jobs Still Essential

Software and Applications Developers remain crucial, with 60% projected growth. Cybersecurity-related roles also make the list, including Security Management Specialists (55%) and Information Security Analysts (40%).

As more data and infrastructure moves online, organizations must also invest more in cybersecurity to defend against evolving risks. According to IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024, the global average cost of a data breach is $4.9 million, up 10% from 2023.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Best Universities for High-Paying Tech Jobs on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 20:25

2026 Health Insurance Premiums Could See Largest Hike In 5 Years: Report

2026 Health Insurance Premiums Could See Largest Hike In 5 Years: Report

Authored by Wesley Brown via The Epoch Times,

The nation’s health-care marketplace insurers are seeking the largest premium increases in more than five years, ahead of the upcoming Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollment period in November, according to an analysis by the Peterson Center on Healthcare and health policy nonprofit KFF.

The July 18 report highlights several factors driving up insurance rates for 2026, as major health insurers submit rate filings to state regulators to justify premium changes for the upcoming calendar year.

“As in most years, rising healthcare costs—both the price of care and increased use—are a significant driver for increasing rates going into plan year 2026. The costs of healthcare services like hospitalizations and physician care, as well as prescription drug costs, tend to go up every year, and insurers often raise premiums to cover their increased costs,” the report states.

The Peterson–KFF analysis examined insurers in the District of Columbia and 19 states: Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

Finalized 2026 rate changes are expected to be published in late summer, and individuals will be able to see how their plans’ premiums are changing just before open enrollment begins in November.

The report states that heading into 2026, insurers expect that some policy changes will drive up their costs, increasing premiums beyond what they would otherwise be. Among these changes are enhanced ACA premium tax credits, which make coverage more affordable and will expire at the end of 2025, resulting in an average increase of more than 75 percent in out-of-pocket premium payments. The impact will vary depending on income and family composition.

“This is expected to cause healthier enrollees to drop their coverage and create a sicker risk pool,” the report states.

An earlier Peterson–KFF analysis found that the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits increased proposed rates by an average of 4 percent. It also stated that there would be gross premium increases, as healthier people are expected to drop their coverage in larger numbers due to increases in their net premium payments.

“Unless the premium tax credits are extended, consumers can expect increases in both the net premium payments and gross premiums,” the June 3 report states.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, on average, gross benchmark silver premiums will ultimately be 7.9 percent higher than they would otherwise be as the risk pool becomes sicker, on average, and that many enrollees will become uninsured.

Tariffs could also drive up the cost of certain drugs, medical equipment, and supplies, the July 18 report stated. It further notes that some insurers report that tariffs—and the uncertainty surrounding them—are causing rate increases.

A June 18 KFF report stated that Optimum Choice of Maryland, Independent Health Benefits Corporation of New York, and UnitedHealthcare of New York are increasing premiums by 2.4 percent, 2.9 percent, and 3.6 percent, respectively, due to the impact of tariffs on pharmaceuticals.

Many insurers submitted proposed rates before Congress passed the budget reconciliation legislation and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized its rule on marketplace integrity and affordability. The legislation and new Medicaid rule, which explain how the ACA marketplace operates and how individuals enroll, were only finalized recently, and it is still unclear how insurers might respond, the report states.

“Early indications are that individual market insurers will be increasing premiums in 2026 by more than they have since 2018, the last time policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium increases,” the July 18 Peterson–KFF report states. It noted that premiums are increasing by a median of 15 percent across the 20 markets it analyzed.

Another factor creating uncertainty in the rate filing process is the implementation of the Trump administration’s ACA integrity rule. Based on what insurers have filed so far, this does not generally appear to be driving rate changes in either direction, according to the report.

“Insurers and state regulators are still finalizing rates for the upcoming plan year, so these filed premium increases may change,” it states.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 19:50

Fewer Than 400 EV Charging Ports Built Despite $7.5 Billion Biden Funding: Watchdog

Fewer Than 400 EV Charging Ports Built Despite $7.5 Billion Biden Funding: Watchdog

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Less than 400 additional electric vehicle (EV) public charging ports have been installed in the United States following billions of dollars of allocated funding under the Biden administration for building charging infrastructure, said a July 22 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, signed into law by then-President Joe Biden, appropriated $7.5 billion in funding for two programs—the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program (NEVI) and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program (CFI). The funds were aimed at supporting the development of public EV charging infrastructure.

However, only 384 charging ports had been built nationwide under the NEVI and CFI programs as of April 2025, the report said.

The Trump administration suspended committing funds for NEVI in February.

GAO said the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which administers the two programs, has lagged in setting clear performance targets for NEVI and CFI.

The report noted that Congress had “expressed concern over the pace” at which charging ports had been built under the programs.

During a June 2024 Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) criticized the slow deployment of EV charging ports.

“That is pathetic. We’re now three years into this. That is a vast administrative failure,” he said. “Something is terribly wrong, and it needs to be fixed.”

The Biden administration had planned to set up 500,000 charging ports by 2030, according to former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

As of May 2025, there were roughly 219,000 publicly available individual charging ports at 77,000 EV charging stations across the United States, the GAO report said.

Only 56,000 of these units are DC fast chargers that allow EV owners to quickly charge their vehicles. The majority, 162,000 units, are Level 2 ports that take much longer to charge, the report said.

For instance, one hour of charging with a Level 2 port only delivers 25 miles of driving range, far lower than the 100 to 200 or more miles delivered by a DC charger, GAO said.

Moreover, there are large cost differences between the two options.

“Level 2 chargers may cost about $900 to $3,000 per charging port to purchase, and between about $700 and $4,000 per charging port to install,” the report said.

In contrast, “the fastest DC fast charger can cost over $140,000 per charging port to purchase, and more than $39,000 per charging port to install, when between three and five charging ports are installed,” according to the report.

GAO highlighted that federal support for EV charging infrastructure may be affected due to the Trump administration’s policies.

On Jan. 20, the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy.”

In the order, Trump instructed all agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds” appropriated via the IIJA or the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, including funding for EV charging stations made available through the NEVI and CFI programs.

In February, FHWA said in a letter sent to the directors of state departments of transportation that it was suspending commitment of funds under the NEVI program.

At the time, the agency said the decision was taken to align with current policies of the Department of Transportation (DOT), including a Jan. 29 DOT order that policymaking be based on “sound economic principles and analysis supported by rigorous cost-benefit requirements and data-driven decisions.”

According to the GAO report, FHWA officials told them in March that due to Trump’s executive order and related agency actions, “most of FHWA’s NEVI and CFI activities were under review while it, and other relevant agencies, determine whether these efforts align with the administration’s policies and priorities.”

“Officials did not provide a time frame of their review process. As of May 2025, these reviews were ongoing and their outcomes unknown,” the GAO report added.

Meanwhile, new EV sales dipped by 3.5 percent in June year over year, according to a July 18 statement from auto industry service company Cox Automotive. The outlook for the fourth quarter is “far less certain” due to the elimination of government-backed incentives and tariff issues, it said.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 18:40

Revenge Or Justice?

Revenge Or Justice?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just released a trove of apparently once-classified documents - with promises of much more to follow.

The new material describes the role of the Obama administration's intelligence and investigatory directors — purportedly along with former President Barack Obama himself — in undermining the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. In addition, their efforts extended to sabotaging the 2016-2017 presidential transition and, by extension, the first three years of the Trump presidency.

The released documents add some new details to what over the last decade has become accepted knowledge.

Congressional committees, special prosecutors, and the inspectors general had all previously issued reports that largely confirmed the general outlines of the skullduggery that began in 2015-16.

Hillary Clinton's campaign, later aided by the top echelon of the FBI, CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, sought — falsely — to seed a narrative that Trump had colluded directly with Russia to win unfairly the 2016 election.

When that campaign gambit failed to alter the 2016 results, the Obama administration doubled down during the transition to undermine the incoming Trump presidency.

Next, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "all-star" legal team found no evidence of direct Trump-Putin collusion to hijack the election. But his investigation did sabotage 22 months of Trump's first term, marked by constant leaks and hysterical rumors that Trump was soon to be convicted and jailed as a "Russian asset."

By 2020, the frustrated intelligence agencies and former "authorities" now absurdly further lied that Hunter Biden's incriminating laptop had "all the earmarks" — once again — of Russian interference.

So, what could be new about Gabbard's latest release?

One, after the 2016 election of Donald Trump but before his inauguration, Obama convened a strange meeting with his outgoing intelligence and investigatory heads — CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and a few others.

Contrary to a four-year Democratic Party narrative that "18 intelligence agencies" had long claimed Russian collusion, the top directors apprised Obama that their expert colleagues had found no such evidence of Trump-Putin collusion.

Yet outgoing President Obama allegedly directed them to ignore such an assessment. Instead, they began spreading narratives that President-elect Trump had been colluding with the Russians.

Leaks followed. Media hysteria crested. And soon Mueller and his left-wing "dream team" of lawyers targeted President Trump.

Further new information may confirm that Brennan's CIA — and those he briefed in the Oval Office — had known for some time that the Russians themselves were confused about why they were falsely being accused of colluding with Trump to rig the election.

Of course, Russian operatives, like their Chinese counterparts, often seek to cause havoc in American institutions, such as hacking emails or spreading online disinformation. But they may have been nevertheless curious why Hillary Clinton was making such false accusations that they were working directly with Trump, and why the Obama administration was acting upon them.

Obama has now claimed these new charges are outrageous and beneath the dignity of the presidency.

He did not, however, flatly contradict the new information. He should have issued an unambiguous denial that he had never ordered his intelligence chiefs in December 2016 to ignore their associates' assessments and instead to assume Trump's collusion with Putin.

These sustained efforts of the Clinton campaign, Obama appointees, and ex-intelligence chiefs and their media counterparts between 2015 and 2020 severely undermined the 2016 Trump campaign.

They bushwhacked the 2017 presidential transition.

They hamstrung the Trump presidency.

And they may well have hurt Trump's 2020 election bid.

Summed up, here is the damage caused by the Trump-Putin collusion lies:

1. They emboldened "experts" in 2020 to again lie blatantly and shamelessly to the American people that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop was yet another fake product of Russian interference to help reelect Trump.

2. The media were equally guilty. Journalists partnered with current and ex-Obama appointees by disseminating fake documents like the Steele dossier and working with giants like Twitter and Facebook. During the 2020 campaign, the FBI and social media sought to censor accurate news stories that the laptop was indeed authentic and already verified as such by the FBI.

3. These operations may have had serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. Dictatorial Russia is an adversary of the U.S.

But by needlessly and falsely claiming that Russia had intervened in two elections directly to partner with Trump, Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump's own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia.

In addition, the lying and extra-legal operations of the FBI and CIA only further convinced the paranoid Russians that they could not trust the U.S. government — given it had been engaging in the very conspiracy lies that were more akin to its own than America's.

Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others will likely never face legal consequences for the damage they've done to our institutions and foreign policy.

But that does not mean they should be exempt from an ongoing and disinterested effort to find and finally expose the whole truth.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 15:10

TIME's "100 Best Podcasts" List Is A Masterclass Of Clueless Liberal Elitism

TIME's "100 Best Podcasts" List Is A Masterclass Of Clueless Liberal Elitism

How did Salesforce founder Marc Benioff's TIME Magazine manage to so epically fumble something as basic as populating a relevant "Top Podcasts" list? 

Perhaps it's because the list was actually curated by an MSM journalist wearing progressive blinders, ignoring reality, and selectively choosing cringe-worthy podcasts while dismissing both Spotify's "The Podcast Charts" and Edison's list of the top 50 podcasts in the U.S., which placed The Joe Rogan Experience at number one.

Meet TIME's Eliana Dockterman, the author of the magazine's "100 Best Podcasts of All Time" list, a compilation filled with cringe-worthy picks that cater to the increasingly out-of-touch Democratic Party base.

Media analyst Sasha Stone of Awards Daily (formerly known as Oscarwatch) commented on the list. She noted, "Okay, so this list isn't anything official or well-thought-out. It's a list for people who listen to Kara Swisher and The Daily. It's the target demo for NPR's Serial and Dax Shepard, but what it isn't is a list that, in any way, reflects the greatest podcasts of all time. Nowhere near."

Stone continued, "She also left off the podcasts that were truly influential, like the Free Press series the Witch Trials of JK Rowling." 

"If it's a personal list, fine. But some authority comes with TIME Magazine naming the best 100 shows and getting it so very very wrong," Stone emphasized. 

Dockterman's top picks for news and politics podcasts include The New York Times and NPR News. There's really nothing more to say ... readers can already profile this journalist who lost the narrative years ago. She needs some serious soul-searching. 

Dockterman didn't just leave out Joe Rogan. She completely ignored Theo Von, whose podcast ranks number three on Spotify.

Again, she left out Rogan's podcast. This is Edison's list. 

TIME's post on X was heavily ratioed, with many users calling the list "crap," "trash," and even saying "this can't be real" ...

Many others said they had never even heard of some of the podcasts on Dockterman's list. This is a telling sign of the massive shift in where people now get their news. Increasingly, they're turning away from the corporate propaganda machine that serves the deep state and globalist corporations and instead turning to alternative voices like Rogan and independent media outlets. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 14:35

US Envoy Blasted For Claiming Syrian Government Forces Not Involved In Sectarian Executions

US Envoy Blasted For Claiming Syrian Government Forces Not Involved In Sectarian Executions

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based rights group that tracks violence in Syria, has released a statement criticizing US Ambassador Tom Barrack for claiming Syrian government forces were not involved in the mass executions of civilians in Suwayda, southern Syria.

Seven days of clashes between Druze militias and Bedouin who were backed by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) government forces left 1,399 people dead, including 196 civilians executed by gunmen affiliated with the Syrian defense and interior ministries, according to the SOHR.

Barrack raising the US flag at the US ambassador’s residence in Damascus on May 29, 2025 (photo via Barrack’s X account)

Barrack, who serves as the ambassador to Turkey and as a special envoy to Syria, claimed Syrian government troops didn’t enter Suwayda during the violence. “The Syrian troops haven’t gone into the city. These atrocities that are happening are not happening by the Syrian regime troops. They’re not even in the city because they agreed with Israel that they would not go in,” he told Reuters.

Barrack also claimed that the fighters who entered the city may have been ISIS members disguised as government troops, though HTS and ISIS share a similar ideology. In response, the SOHR said that it “strongly rejects and condemns” Barrack’s comments.

SOHR considers these statements to lack even the minimum standards of objectivity and neutrality. They not only represent a serious deviation from the envoy’s expected role as a mediator working toward peace and stability among Syrians, but also open the door for further massacres to be committed against other Syrian communities, similar to what has happened to the Druze and Alawites in Suwayda and other regions,” the SOHR said.

“SOHR affirms that it possesses documented evidence, including video footage and credible field testimonies, confirming that the horrific violations, including the execution of civilians, the throwing of young men from upper floors and the killing of a Syrian-American citizen on sectarian grounds, took place on the day Syrian Ministry of Defense personnel entered Suwayda city,” the group added.

The SOHR said that Barrack should not act as a “defense attorney” for “an interim authority that has failed to protect Syrians and whose media and key figures have contributed to fueling sectarian and regional conflict.”

The SOHR has detailed many of the executions in Suwayda, including one where Hosam Saraya, a 35-year-old Syrian American, was shot to death along with seven of his relatives, a massacre that was filmed and posted online.

The SOHR also detailed the killing of Pastor Khaled Maher Mazhar, a Christian convert from the Druze religion who was massacred along with 11 members of his family, including six women. The group said the family was killed by members of the Syrian Defense Ministry. “The perpetrators opened fire directly on everyone inside the house, even extending the killing to include the family’s dog, an act that reflects the extreme brutality of the massacre,” the SOHR said.

Barrack and other US officials have embraced the new Syrian government and its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, despite his al-Qaeda past. HTS formed in 2017 as an offshoot of the al-Nusra Front, which was al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria until Sharaa rebranded to gain international support.

HTS took power in Damascus following a lightning offensive that ended with the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad. The US had foreknowledge of the offensive and helped a US-backed militia take part in the assault from its base at al-Tanf in southern Syria.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 14:00

Drones Hit Key Russian Electronic Warfare Plant; Moscow Forces Gain More Villages In Central Ukraine

Drones Hit Key Russian Electronic Warfare Plant; Moscow Forces Gain More Villages In Central Ukraine

As part of the latest in the war, overnight Ukrainian drones targeted a facility producing radio and electronic warfare equipment in Russia's Stavropol region, according to a Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) official speaking to Reuters.

The official said the strike damaged two sections of the Signal plant in Stavropol, which lies roughly 335 miles from the Ukrainian border. Short video clips showing an explosion and thick, dark smoke rising into the air were subsequently released in order to confirm there was serious damage.

Images of the attack on the Signal defense plant in Stavropol.

The Signal plant is considered one of Russia's prime producers of electronic warfare systems, manufacturing items such as radar, radio navigation devices, and remote-control communication systems.

"Last night, long-range drones operated by the SBU struck the production facilities of the Signal Radio Plant in Stavropol," the official said.

"Each such strike disrupts production and weakens the enemy's military capabilities. These operations will continue," he added.

For Russia's part, it announced on Saturday that its forces had taken control of two villages in Ukraine, including one in the central Dnipropetrovsk region. This marks a key advance given the longtime static nature of the front lines in Dnipropetrovsk.

The Russian military stated that its troops had "liberated the settlement of Maliyevka" in Dnipropetrovsk, which is a  second such capture in the region recently, despite this area not being among the Ukrainian territories formally annexed by Russia.

In a separate statement, the Kremling also claimed the capture of Zeleny Gai in the Donetsk region, near the Dnipropetrovsk border. The Russian military described it as a key Ukrainian defensive position used to protect the area.

Meanwhile, officials from both countries confirmed that overnight attacks killed six people, including four in central Ukraine and two in western Russia.

Source: NHK World 

Ukrainian and Russian delegations just met days ago in Istanbul for their third round of talks, but nothing came of it except for firming up the next major prisoner swap, as well as to agree to keep talking.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 13:25

Memes Over Momo; Retail Hammers Hedgies As Gold & Bitcoin Sink

Memes Over Momo; Retail Hammers Hedgies As Gold & Bitcoin Sink

Yesterday and today were among the lowest range days for the S&P 500 over the past four years, but, as Goldman Sachs trading floor noted, on the flip side, market volumes remain quite active tracking to the third 20B share session of the week (and highest weekly average volume since April’s record-setting volume sessions)...

Source: Bloomberg

It was also quiet on the macro front (outside of tariff talk), with a slight lean to disappointment in the data...

Source: Bloomberg

'Micro' dominated most of the narratives:

EPS recap after week two: 33% of S&P market cap has now reported and so far, 62% have reported EPS beats of >1stdev (vs 48% historic avg), while 12% have reported EPS misses >1stdev (vs 13% historic avg). 

Rate-cut expectations drifted lower this week...

Source: Bloomberg

It was a headline heavy day early on as Trump addressed the press pool before boarding Air Force One for Scotland, but market reactions were muted amid the summer doldrums.

More tariffs are coming and rates seem to be in line with what the president has already pre-announced.

  • *TRUMP: SOME LETTERS WILL SAY 10%, 15% TARIFF RATE

  • *TRUMP: MOST OF THE TRADE DEALS ARE FINISHED RIGHT NOW

  • *TRUMP SAYS TARIFF LETTERS GOING OUT BY FRIDAY: POOL

  • *TRUMP: WILL SEND CLOSE TO 200 TARIFF LETTERS

On Europe, Trump cast some doubt over the deal, but the overall tone was positive. The trade framework with China remains on track, too.

  • *TRUMP: 50-50 CHANCE OF MAKING DEAL WITH EU

  • *TRUMP: WE’RE GETTING ALONG WITH EU, VERY WELL WITH CHINA

  • *TRUMP: IN PROCESS OF COMPLETING CHINA DEAL

And on Jerome Powell, the president has backed off from this threats to fire the Fed chair:

  • *TRUMP SAYS FIRING POWELL UNNECESSARY, FED WILL DO RIGHT THING

  • *TRUMP: POWELL TOLD ME ECONOMY IS DOING WELL

  • *TRUMP SAYS POWELL IS A ‘VERY GOOD MAN’: POOL

While all the majors ended the week in the green with the S&P leading (and Small Caps and Nasdaq lagging)...

...the big picture hid the ugly reality under the hood - as meme stocks soared and momentum was clubbed like a baby seal...

Source: Bloomberg

Who could have seen that coming?

Hedge funds had another tough week, with Goldman's proxy falling to its lowest level in two years...

Source: Bloomberg

And before we leave equity-land, we note that this afternoon saw the more 'ominous' "Spot Up Vol Up" trade start to evolve, suggesting blowoff top is imminent...

Source: Bloomberg

Treasuries were mixed this week with short-end yields higher while the long-end was the biggest (price) gainer with yields down 6bps...

Source: Bloomberg

The yield curve (2s30s) flattened significantly this week...

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar ended the week lower, despite a strong comeback the last two days...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold fell for the 3rd day in a row testing its 50DMA (marginally lower for the second week in a row)

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin also fell for the second week in a row, testing $115k at two week lows...

Source: Bloomberg

Ethereum outperformed significantly on the week, extending its bounce off the 2019 lows...

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, next week is a big one...

Source: Bloomberg

...with 37% of the SPX reports earnings including META + MSFT (Wed night) and AAPL + AMZN (Thurs night). We also get a healthy dose of macro with the FOMC on Wed and Payrolls on Friday. Additionally the 8/1 trade deal deadline also looms on Friday with Trump planning to send 200 letters to various countries between now and then...

Source: Bloomberg

...for now, global trade policy uncertainty is falling fast.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/26/2025 - 09:15

Pages