Zero Hedge

Dutch Foreign Minister Steps Down After Israel Sanctions Blocked, Caretaker Govt Fragments

Dutch Foreign Minister Steps Down After Israel Sanctions Blocked, Caretaker Govt Fragments

Dutch parliament is fiercely divided on whether it should take more measures which add teeth to recent actions calling out Israel for the mounting civilian death toll and starvation conditions in the Gaza Strip. Just last month, the hardline Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who actively assist in Jewish settler expansion in the West Bank, were formally declared persona non grata in the Netherlands.

On Friday, following a five-hour parliamentary debate which made clear that the caretaker government is divided, foreign minister Casper Veldkamp (center-right New Social Contract party) stepped down in protest after members of his own cabinet blocked new sanctions measures imposed on Israel.

Caspar Veldkamp, file image

Veldkamp acknowledged that the government had already made positive moves, but he explained, "I felt resistance in the cabinet against more measures as a result of what is happening in Gaza City and the occupied West Bank at the moment."

"I find myself unable to implement meaningful additional steps to increase pressure on Israel," he added in a statement to the press. He felt 'constrained' on the vital issue, Veldmamp described.

Bloomberg observes that Veldkamp has "faced resistance to his stance from some members of the caretaker coalition that has run the Netherlands since the government collapsed in June."

Over twenty countries, including many in Europe and Netherlands among them, have this week signed a joint declaration condemning Israel's approval of a major West Bank settlement project, dubbing it "unacceptable and contrary to international law." However, Veldkamp and some in parliament have wanted to go beyond mere symbolic acts.

Parallel to the situation in the United States, the Dutch right is beginning to split on Israel - as more and more conservatives, and especially young people begin to question their governments' constant support of Israel - or at least lack of accountability when it comes to Tel Aviv's actions.

The political landscape on the Right in The Netherlands has always been supportive of Israel. But the shift is illustrated by parties like the Forum for Democracy (FvD), which have led the most vocal criticisms of Israel - and from the Right. Though its founding its relatively recent (2015), party leader and founder Thierry Baudet has described to ZeroHedge that FvD - despite currently having just a handful of seats in parliament - is the single largest party by membership in The Netherlands.

MP Baudet previously took to the parliament floor where he spoke inconvenient truths, and made clear his position that what the Israeli government is doing in Gaza goes too far:

"All of the Netherlands was wondering why the cabinet actually fell. I already raised the question on June 4th last year: did the cabinet perhaps fall over Gaza - not over immigration?" Baudet questioned.

Baudet continued in his earlier this summer parliament address, "Could it be that Geert Wilders [who resigned in June pulling his party out of government and toppled the ruling coalition] foresaw today’s clash, in which he would inevitably face opposition from a majority of the House - for whom expelling, killing, or starving all of Gaza would go too far?"

Indeed the issue has become a growing flashpoint, also as on Friday the UN declared a state of famine in parts of Gaza, ahead of the October 29 general elections.

The Dutch 'far-right' party Forum for Democracy has been forging relationships with Trump admin officials, and also with conservative/libertarian-leaning anti-Israel movements in the United States...

Division in Dutch parliament and within the caretaker government is only likely to grow more intense between now and then, and could translate into wins for parties critical of Israel and movements like FvD picking up many more seats.

* * *

Some of FvD party leader Thierry Baudet's latest statements before parliament (auto-dubbed):

"The complete destruction of Gaza and the colonization of the West Bank is morally unacceptable, unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective, and moreover, disastrous for everyone involved: for the Palestinians, for Europe, and for the Israelis themselves. This is why the FVD (Foundation for Freedom and Democracy) supports sanctions against both Hamas and the Netanyahu government," the MP has said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 18:00

Shocking NEW Documents Expose Multi-Front Effort To Protect Clintons While Framing Trump

Shocking NEW Documents Expose Multi-Front Effort To Protect Clintons While Framing Trump

Submitted by Peter Schweizer & Seamus Bruner of The Drill Down, 

Newly unearthed documents show deep state government actors once again circling the wagons to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton — and suppressing evidence that implicated them. Last week it was the FBI, this week it is the IRS.

In 2019, the IRS Criminal Investigations Division quietly launched a probe into the Clinton Foundation's tax practices, working closely with whistleblowers John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, financial experts who had compiled thousands of pages of evidence.

According to internal agency memos reported by Just the News, IRS agents reviewed the evidence and at least one agent concluded it meant that the "entire [Clinton Foundation] enterprise is a fraud." Agents then moved to treat the whistleblowers as cooperating witnesses and even set up secure computer servers to hold the material they had collected.

Then, without warning, the lights went out. "Can't talk about the CF," agents told the whistleblowers. By the summer of 2019, their inquiry was dead. Moynihan and Doyle are now battling the agency in Tax Court over the apparent shutdown of the investigation.

The IRS's abrupt reversal follows an earlier, more infamous pattern. In 2016, FBI field offices in New York, Washington, and Little Rock all opened probes into the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, partly on the strength of Peter Schweizer's 2015 bestselling book, Clinton Cash, which exposed numerous examples of the Clintons using the foundation while she served as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama as a pay-to-play scheme for business and foreign government interests seeking political influence.

The book told the story of Uranium One, a US mining company that was sold to the Russians after investors pledged more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. That story was confirmed in a front-page story by the New York Times when the book was published and based on its material.

The FBI field office investigations were proceeding until they were ordered by higher-ups to stop. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates ordered prosecutors to "shut it down." Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe required his personal approval for every investigative step — effectively choking the cases.

The fallout from Clinton Cash was real. Clinton staffers scrambled for advance copies of the book, while Hillary's own pollsters flagged the Uranium One deal as her campaign's biggest vulnerability in the early primary states. By January 2016, the FBI was looking into the book's allegations — until the brakes were pulled.

Appearing on an OANN program this week, Schweizer told host Matt Gaetz that the government's double standard is unmistakable. "At the same time, they are killing an organic investigation into Clinton corruption… they were also creating a completely fictional investigation tying [Donald] Trump to Russia," he said.

Five FBI field offices had been involved before being shut down, including a satellite office in Africa. Schweizer called the saga proof of a new kind of corruption — "offshored, globalized corruption," complete with political dynasties selling access and foreign oligarchs buying influence.

The contrast between the scuttled investigation of the Clinton Foundation and the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into the Trump campaign's purported ties to Russia is glaring. While the Clinton probes were heavily throttled, the FBI raced to open a full investigation into Trump's campaign on the flimsiest of tips — a conversation in a London wine bar — green-lighting it within three days. Clinton's Russia vulnerabilities were turned into Trump's burden, projected onto his campaign in a haze of innuendo.

Put together, the picture is damning: an IRS that dropped the ball in 2019, and an FBI and DOJ that throttled their own field offices in 2016. The whistleblowers are still pressing their case, six years later.

But the old memos are now re-surfacing, and the "deep state" may yet face a reckoning from what may prove the largest political scandal of modern times.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 17:40

U.S. Government Finalizes Deal For 10% Equity Stake In Intel, Will Release $8.87 Billion In Funding

U.S. Government Finalizes Deal For 10% Equity Stake In Intel, Will Release $8.87 Billion In Funding

Update 8/22/25 1657EST: Bloomberg is reporting that the deal will see the U.S. government acquiring 433.3 million shares of Intel at $20.47 per share. The government will be "passive" owners with no board members and agrees to vote with the company's board of directors. The government's stake will be funded by $5.7 billion in award grants, the report says, and the government will get a warrant for an additional 5% of the company that can be exercised under certain conditions.

Bloomberg writes:

Under the Friday agreement, the US will receive 433,323,000 shares of common stock — representing 9.9% of the fully diluted common shares in Intel — with the government pledging to release nearly $8.87 billion in funding under the Chips and Science Act, people familiar with the terms said, speaking on condition of anonymity to outline the deal before it was formally unveiled. That represents the remaining Chips Act funding that was awarded but not yet distributed to Intel, they said. The shares are non-voting and there is no board seat for the US government, according to the people. Tan was at the Commerce Department building on Friday finalizing the deal.

"This historic agreement strengthens U.S. leadership in semiconductors, which will both grow our economy and help secure America’s technological edge," Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on Twitter following the news.

As a reminder, here's how the negotiation started just about two weeks ago...

--

President Donald Trump announced that Intel has agreed to give the US government a 10% ownership stake, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

“They’ve agreed to do it and I think it’s a great deal for them,” Trump said today. He described the deal as a “great opportunity” to help revive Intel, which he argued has slipped behind global chipmaking competitors. Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan is expected to attend the signing.

“And I said, You know what? I think the United States should be given 10% of Intel, and he said, ‘I would consider that,’ and I said, ‘Well, I’d like you to do that,’” Trump said of his talks with Tan last week.

The agreement reportedly stems from discussions over the Chips and Science Act, with subsidies being converted into ownership shares. Such a move would represent a rare and controversial level of government intervention in a major American company, normally reserved for wartime or systemic crises. Intel declined to comment on the timing, but its stock climbed more than 6% after the news.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the administration wants taxpayer dollars to generate direct returns, not just one-time grants. Officials clarified that companies already ramping up US investments—like TSMC and Micron—would not be pressed for similar concessions.

Trump has signaled a broader strategy of economic statecraft in his second term, seeking greater US leverage over critical industries. Earlier this year, he secured revenue-sharing deals with Nvidia and AMD on China-bound AI chip sales and obtained a “golden share” in Nippon Steel that gives him influence over US Steel.

The news comes days after it was announced that SoftBank Group is making a surprise $2 billion investment in Intel, buying shares at $23 apiece. Bloomberg first reported the SoftBank deal to purchase $2 billion worth of Intel shares at $23 apiece. As we noted last week, shares last peaked above $64 in 2021.

"For more than 50 years, Intel has been a trusted leader in innovation," SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son wrote in a statement. He added, "This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the United States, with Intel playing a critical role."

Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, a longtime SoftBank associate, added: "I appreciate the confidence he has placed in Intel with this investment."

SoftBank's US footprint is expanding, we noted last week. It recently bought Foxconn's Ohio EV plant, a move that could help Stargate, as Asian chip giants like TSMC and Samsung commit billions to the 'America First' agenda. 

Recall, we wrote days ago about the Trump administration's interest in taking direct stakes in US strategic companies, first with...

Then with:

Bloomberg reported last week that Washington was in talks to convert up to $10.9 billion in Chips Act grants into equity, which could have given the government roughly a 10% stake and made it Intel's largest shareholder.

This mirrored the Pentagon's $400 million preferred equity purchase of MP Materials last month, which we had flagged ahead of time despite others calling it "unprecedented."

A press conference is expected Friday afternoon with more details, according to Bloomberg. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 17:07

'Wake Up & Smell The Coffee... We're Marching Into A Promised Land Of Accountability...'

'Wake Up & Smell The Coffee... We're Marching Into A Promised Land Of Accountability...'

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

By The Batch

“The problem with the future is that it is both unpredictable and inescapable.”

- Tarik Cyril Amar

Please everybody, extricate yourselves from the mud-wallow of cynicism. Naysayers arise and open your eyes! Sleepwalkers and black-pillers, smell the coffee and wake up! Sob-sisters dry your tears! We are marching into a promised land of accountability after all.

Our country, you well know, has been sore beset under a long-running seditious coup orchestrated by an ever more insane Bolshevik-Jacobin syndicate of political reprobates seeking to erase every boundary between the real and the unreal since 2016, a year that now lives in infamy. All their malice and roguery has been focused on the odd figure who somehow rose to lead the opposition to their burgeoning color revolution, Mr. Trump, who, through some alchemy of fortitude, managed to evade their many-footed depredations — to get re-elected.

Of course, you’ve also noticed that psychological projection is the heart of the seditionists’ game. Whatever ploy or subterfuge they accuse you of, is exactly what they are doing. Their mainstay is the phrase conspiracy theory. Whenever one of their many turpitudes is carried out — such as a rigged election — your notice of it is labeled a conspiracy theory. In fact, their long train of activities to turn the country upside-down and inside-out has been one drawn-out seditious conspiracy. And that is liable to be precisely one of the charges lodged against them — but surely not the only charge.

You have seen news (anywhere but in The New York Times) that grand juries are being convened here and there to scrutinize a whole lot of bad behavior by a whole lot of officials who recklessly wielded their power, who betrayed the nation, who broke institutions, destroyed lives, careers, and households, and, as an added insult, attempted to make you swallow one patent absurdity after another — a Potemkin president, drag queens in the schools, a massive invasion of alien mutts across an open border, Saint George Floyd and “mostly peaceful protests,” math is racist, boys in girls’ sports and locker rooms — all in their campaign to destroy American cultural coherence while they seized totalistic political control and sniped their adversaries off the game board. (Just look how they destroyed Rudolf Giuliani, a heroic figure who saved New York City in the 1990s.)

Grand juries are a sign that something serious is up. Evidence is being gathered by a new FBI, no longer dedicated to just covering-up its past crimes. A sign of how serious this effort is: the hiring last week of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as Co-Deputy FBI Director. Mr. Bailey, you may recall, presided over the Missouri v Biden lawsuit (2022) about the “Joe Biden” White House’s efforts to coerce social media into censorship. The SCOTUS killed the case on spurious grounds for “lack of standing to sue.” But the government censorship crusade was a hallmark affront to the Constitution in the years’ long seditious conspiracy against the American people. It could even return as a criminal— not a civil — case this time, since censorship was so central to the overall coup.

The convening of several grand juries tells you that cases are being made now and that they will be tried in batches or tranches according to the various episodes of the coup. I’ll venture to describe what some of these batches might comprise.

The origin and execution of RussiaGate, involving former President Obama, then-Veep Joe Biden, CIA Director Brennan, FBI chief Comey, DNI Clapper, Susan Rice, Mary McCord, Sally Yates, Adam Schiff (then-Chair of the House Intel Committee), and Senator Mark Warner (then-Chair of the Senate Intel Committee), plus Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzrok, Bruce Ohr, John Carlin, Joe Pientka, Steven Somma, and a number of other DOJ / FBI foot-soldiers, and CIA London Station chief Gina Haspel.

Another batch might be the judges in the FISA Courts, who made themselves tools of a corrupt FBI, starting with then-Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer, and including James Boasberg, who notoriously let FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith skate after his forging a crucial document that would have revealed Carter Page to be a CIA asset. Federal judges are not granted immunity from criminal prosecution under the Constitution.

Another batch might be the gang who put together spurious Trump Impeachment No. 1 over the Ukraine Phone Call matter: Adam Schiff, CIA / NSC mole Eric Ciaramella (the “whistleblower”), Intel IG Michael Atkinson, Col. Alexander Vindman of the NSC; plus lawfare ninjas Mary McCord and Norm Eisen who helped plan the scheme, the two Ukraine Ambassadors officers they schemed with, Marie Yavonovitch and Jeffrey Pyatt; plus “Russia expert” Fiona Hill of the NSC. In the Senate trial phase of the impeachment, consider that then-Attorney General William Barr withheld exculpatory evidence from Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys contained in the Hunter Biden laptop, the existence of which he was concealing, and which was stuffed with emails and memoranda detailing the Biden Family’s grifting operation in Ukraine.

Another batch would have to include the FBI / CIA / DOJ / DOD and Congressional characters who helped stage various aspects of the Jan. 6, 2021 US Capitol riot (the so-called “insurrection”) including (again) Christopher Wray, General Mark Milley, Speaker Nancy Pelosi; plus Steven M. D’Antuono, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, who arranged and then covered-up the pipe-bomb caper at the DNC headquarters that day.

Another batch might be the lawyers in the DOJ / FBI who cooked-up the Mar-a-Lago raid without an authentic legal predicate: Deputy AG Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray appear to have been responsible for that ploy — and especially the degrading manner of its execution with a SWAT team, staged evidence photo ops, and the rifling of Melania Trump’s lingerie drawers.

Then there’s a big batch of the fifty-one former intel officers (including several CIA ex-chiefs), who signed the infamous letter labeling Hunter Biden’s laptop “Russian disinformation,” a potential incident of criminal election interference.

Let’s not leave out the absurd campaign of serial fake prosecutions for civil and criminal charges launched in Atlanta, Washington, and New York City, coordinated (again) by lawfare artists Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, plus Ben Wittes, Marc Elias and others, through the good offices of Attorney General Merrick Garland and whomever in the White House was coaching the likes of Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Letitia James, and Alvin Bragg.

You see how this goes? This ongoing coup against the people of this land is spectacularly wide-ranging and multilayered, with a cast of hundreds. The cases entailed are complex, and it is axiomatic that conspiracy cases are especially difficult to win. Of course, there are many other charges that range, say, from possibly treason to conspiracy against rights under color of law, defrauding the government, lying to the FBI and to Congress, election interference, malicious prosecution. . . .

The cases are huge and complex. Are Pam Bondi and Kash Patel up to it? I guess we’ll find out. I’m inclined to believe that quite a few of these rogues are going to court and some of them will land in prison. So, quit taking those black pills and cheer up.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 16:20

US House Adds CBDC Ban To Massive Defense Policy Bill

US House Adds CBDC Ban To Massive Defense Policy Bill

Authored by Jesse Coghlan via CoinTelegraph.com,

The US House added a provision banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) into an almost 1,300-page bill setting the country’s defense policy for the 2026 fiscal year.

A revision of HR 3838, the House’s version of a bill implementing the National Defense Authorization Act, was shared on Thursday by the House Rules Committee to include sweeping language banning the Federal Reserve from studying or creating digital currency.

The House passed a similar Republican-backed bill, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, in July with a slim vote of 219 - 210, which now has an uncertain future in the Senate.

The National Defense Authorization Act and related appropriations bills are seen as “must-pass” national security legislation as they outline how the military will be funded and how it will spend its budget.

It’s typical of lawmakers to add non-defense-related provisions that could otherwise be stalled or heavily revised if passed as standalone bills.

House leaders promised CBDC ban in defense bill

Top House Republicans had promised to include a CBDC ban in the military spending bill in a deal with conservative hardliners in July.

A group of Republican holdouts had refused to move three crypto bills forward unless a CBDC ban was guaranteed to pass, stalling a vote to set up floor debate on the bills for over nine hours, the longest in the House’s history.

At the time, the House passing the CBDC-banning bill on its own was seen as unlikely due to a lack of support. Debate on the bills eventually moved forward after House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the CBDC ban would be added to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Source: Tom Emmer

Provision would stop Fed-issued digital currency

The provision in the defense policy bill would ban the Fed from issuing any digital currency or asset and stop the central bank from offering financial products or services directly to individuals.

It adds that the central bank may not “test, study, develop, create, or implement” a digital currency or asset, but allows a carve-out for stablecoins, saying the bill does not prohibit “any dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private.”

A CBDC bill died last Congress

House Republicans have been looking to ban CBDCs for some time.

The party’s House leaders had looked to pass a version of the CBDC-banning bill in the last congressional session.

A similarly named bill, called the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, was introduced by Representative Tom Emmer in early 2023, but it didn’t progress and died with the last Congress.

Emmer reintroduced a version of the bill in the current Congress, and Republicans have backed the effort as aligning with President Donald Trump’s executive order in January prohibiting CBDCs.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 15:25

Mass-Casualty Bus Crash Reported On New York Highway

Mass-Casualty Bus Crash Reported On New York Highway

A deadly bus crash has been reported on I-90 near Pembroke, New York. The accident has been declared a mass-casualty incident. New York State Police confirmed multiple fatalities, including at least one child. More than 50 people were on board the bus when it lost control and flipped into a ditch. 

Local outlet WIVB reported that several air transport helicopters and ambulances arrived at the scene after the bus lost control around 12:40 p.m., veered into the median, and overturned into a ditch near Exit 48A eastbound. 

"Many people were ejected. Over 50 people were on the bus," WIVB noted, adding that the bus was returning to New York City from Niagara Falls. Many of the passengers were of Indian, Chinese, and Filipino nationality. 

Peter Cutler, the vice president of communications and internal affairs at Erie County Medical Center, said hospital staff received a "mass casualty notification" following the bus crash to prepare for dozens of patients. 

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has been briefed on the situation. 

"This is a developing story

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 15:15

Canada's Carney Backs Down On Tariffs As Trump Welcomes Another Win

Canada's Carney Backs Down On Tariffs As Trump Welcomes Another Win

Another major economy and country backs down, and Trump wins again - as on Friday Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada will drop its retaliatory tariffs in step with the United States as both countries work to de-escalate their trade dispute.

Carney in a Friday press conference said the US side clarified it would not apply tariffs to Canadian products that adhere to the terms of the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement. Even Politico has starkly described it as Carney backs down in a major concession:

"We have the best deal of anyone in the world right now," Carney told reporters in Ottawa, noting that the average U.S. tariff rate on Canadian goods is 5.6 percent, the lowest among America’s trading partners. "Today, the Government of Canada is harmonizing its tariffs with the U.S."

However, he noted that some duties, particularly on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, will still remain in effect. Other sources quoted in various reports have also indicated this.

"In this context and consistent with Canada’s commitment to USMCA, I am announcing today that the Canadian government will now match the United States by removing all of Canada’s tariffs on US goods specifically covered under USMCA," said Carney, previewing that the change will take effect on September 1.

"Canada and the US have now re-established free trade for the vast majority of our goods," he added.

The White House hailed the move: "We welcome this move by Canada, which is long overdue. We look forward to continuing our discussions with Canada on the Administration's trade and national security concerns," a Trump admin official said. And more via breaking Canadian media reports:

  • U.S. President Donald Trump commended the tariff removal, calling it "nice" and saying he wanted to "be good to Canada."

  • Trump raised tariffs on some Canadian goods to 35 per cent on Aug. 1.

  • The Trump administration said Canada's rate was being hiked in response to fentanyl trafficking and Canada's earlier decision to hit back with counter-tariffs.

The Canadian dollar is strengthening notably against the US dollar today (helped by Powell's words and Carney's actions)...

Reuters has reviewed of the transition from Trudeau:

Carney's predecessor as prime minister, Justin Trudeau, imposed 25% tariffs on $21 billion in goods imported annually from the U.S. on March 6 in response to Trump's initial duties.

The C$30 billion was part of an overall retaliation plan to target C$155 billion worth of imported goods from the U.S., though the remaining C$125 billion has been delayed.

Carney had repeatedly claimed he had a mandate from the public to 'stand up to' the Trump administration, but alas he's the latest in a line of global leaders to instead sit down amid the immense tariff and trade pressure.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 15:05

Awkward: "Brazen Election Cheating" Allegations Rock Minneapolis Mayoral Endorsement

Awkward: "Brazen Election Cheating" Allegations Rock Minneapolis Mayoral Endorsement

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party stripped the party's endorsement of radical leftist Minnesota state Sen. Omar Fateh in the Minneapolis mayoral race over "brazen cheating." The emerging election cheating scandal hilariously occurred amongst Democrats. Awkwardly, this comes from the same party of woke leftists that insists U.S. elections are the "safest in the world" and free from manipulation. Clearly, this corrupt party that serves progressive elites - not the working class - wants a do-over in this local election. 

On Thursday, Minnesota DFL chair Richard Carlbom wrote in a statement, "After a thoughtful and transparent review of the challenges, the Constitution, Bylaws & Rules Committee found substantial failures in the Minneapolis Convention's voting process on July 19, including an acknowledgement that a mayoral candidate was errantly eliminated from contention."

Carlbom added, "Now it's time to turn our focus to unity and our common goal: electing DFL leaders focused on making life more affordable for Minnesotans and holding Republicans accountable for the chaos and confusion they've unleashed on Minnesotans."

A series of challenges were submitted to the Minnesota DFL after last month's convention, citing serious issues with the electronic voting system and raising questions about election integrity in Fateh's endorsement over incumbent Jacob Frey. The Minneapolis DFL also recognized it had erroneously eliminated DeWayne Davis after the first round of voting due to 176 undercounted votes.

Jonathan Turley chimed in on X about Fateh's short-lived endorsement, 

"Omar Fateh is accusing fellow democrats of being effectively election deniers who are claiming election machine voting was flawed. Sounds familiar. As with Hogg after the DNC election, the party is planning a do-over."

Turley couldn't be more right… Fateh's campaign claimed that "establishment Democrats, including many Frey supporters," coordinated the effort to nuke his endorsement.

Meanwhile, Fateh's brother-in-law...

If Democrats are willing to cheat in local elections, especially against themselves, then how about revisiting the 2020 presidential election?

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 14:25

Beyond The Data Center: Goldman's Silicon Valley Field Trip Finds AI Moving From Chips To Workflows

Beyond The Data Center: Goldman's Silicon Valley Field Trip Finds AI Moving From Chips To Workflows

Goldman analysts led by George Tong returned to Silicon Valley for their second AI field trip, meeting with AI startups, public companies, VCs, and professors from Stanford, UCSF, and UC Berkeley to assess whether corporate America is truly embracing generative AI. The visit comes as record AI capex fuels record hyperscale data center buildouts nationwide, while investors search for clues on whether the adoption phase will materialize: a shift beyond infrastructure into the application layer.

"Insights indicate AI labs are expanding from the infrastructure layer to the application layer and LLM costs are sharply declining though capex may continue to rise as Gen AI usage and adoption grows," Tong wrote in a note to clients on Friday. 

He continued: "Academic research on LLM technologies could further bring down costs. While software development costs are falling and increasing competitive and pricing risks, moats in application AI and SaaS companies include broader user distribution, engagement with power users to drive reinforcement learning from feedback loops, integration into workflows and leveraging proprietary data."

Tong's discussions with Silicon Valley business and academic leaders point to an acceleration in generative AI adoption starting in 2026. 

Here's a summary of the findings:

  • Shift from infrastructure to applications: AI innovation is moving beyond chips and cloud (Nvidia, GPUs, etc.) toward actual end-user applications and vertical software solutions.

  • LLM costs are sliding: Training and using large language models is getting cheaper, though capex will still rise as usage expands. Academia is helping reduce costs: University research may accelerate efficiency gains in AI models.

  • Software development deflation: Building with AI is cheaper and faster, but that means higher competition and pricing pressure for software companies.

Tong said the conversations in Silicon Valley point to "positive implications" for S&P Global, Moody's, Iron Mountain, Verisk Analytics, and Thomson Reuters. He noted that his team has initiated coverage on McGraw-Hill with a "Buy" rating and a $27 12-month price target based on a "digital transformation" in the education space. 

The analyst provided clients with a "chart of the week" that showed how McGraw-Hill is leveraging AI to improve product efficacy and drive growth. 

Is the AI rate adoption (read here) enough to justify this record capex spending (more details here) by hyperscalers? 

Let's hope so, or AI stocks face a hefty correction. 

More in the full Goldman note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 13:40

Judge Declares Alina Habba's Roles As US Attorney For New Jersey 'Unlawful'

Judge Declares Alina Habba's Roles As US Attorney For New Jersey 'Unlawful'

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on Thursday found that Alina Habba, a former attorney to President Donald Trump, has been unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey since July.

Alina Habba speaks after being sworn in as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, in the Oval Office of the White House on March 28, 2025. Pool via AP

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania wrote in a 77-page opinion.

“And because she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases,” Brann said.

Trump appointed Habba in March as interim U.S. attorney, a role limited to 120 days unless extended by a vote of the district’s judges. When Habba’s term expired in July, the judges opted to replace her with her second-in-command, Desiree Grace. The Justice Department responded by firing Grace and reinstalling Habba, this time designating her as “Special Attorney to the Attorney General.”

By law, interim U.S. attorneys may serve only 120 days before district judges either appoint a temporary successor or the Senate confirms the administration’s nominee. If neither happens, the office’s first assistant may temporarily assume the role. In New Jersey, that would have been Grace, but her removal cleared the way for Habba, now the most senior official in the office, to stay in charge.

The Trump administration took this unusual maneuver as Democrats continue to block the president’s U.S. attorney nominees from getting a full Senate vote. While the administration has extended several interim appointments by sidestepping Senate confirmation and judicial appointment, Habba’s is so far the only one to face a formal legal challenge.

The challenge was brought by three criminal defendants in New Jersey, who argued that Habba lacked legal authority to prosecute them after her 120-day interim appointment ended in July. They asked the court to throw out their indictments, claiming that any case filed under her leadership was invalid.

Brann agreed that Habba had no legal authority but declined to dismiss those charges. Instead, he ruled that anyone who prosecutes them “under the supervision or authority of Ms. Habba” would be subject to disqualification, and that any prosecutorial actions she has made since July 1 should be declared voided.

The case was reassigned to Brann after Michael A. Chagares, chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ordered it moved out of the District of New Jersey. In a brief, one-sentence directive, Chagares said the trial was being transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania “in the public interest,” offering no further explanation.

Anticipating an appeal, Brann stayed his ruling and allowed Habba to remain in place while higher courts review the matter.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. It has argued that the president has broad discretion to decide who leads U.S. attorney offices.

“The President has made clear that he will not permit anyone other than Ms. Habba to fill the current vacancy in the office of the United States Attorney on a temporary basis. That is his prerogative; this Court cannot second-guess it,” the department wrote in a court filing.

Shortly after Habba took office, she opened an investigation into New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over the state’s immigration policies. No charges have been filed so far in connection with the inquiry.

In May, her office charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) with assaulting federal officers while McIver and two other lawmakers were conducting a “congressional oversight inspection” at an immigration detention center in Newark. Prosecutors allege that McIver tried to block the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who had been barred by federal agents from joining the delegation.

McIver has denied wrongdoing and is seeking dismissal of the case.

Habba’s office also charged Baraka with trespassing, but later dropped the case.

Habba’s office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 13:20

Trump 'Very Angry' At Ukraine Repeatedly Attacking Russian Pipeline To Hungary, Slovakia

Trump 'Very Angry' At Ukraine Repeatedly Attacking Russian Pipeline To Hungary, Slovakia

For the second time in less than two weeks, Russian oil shipments to Hungary have been suspended following yet another Ukrainian strike on the Druzhba pipeline.

Hungary's Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto announced it Friday, with Slovak officials also confirming. "This is yet another blow to our energy security - another effort to pull us into the war," Szijjarto stated on social media. It occurred near the Russia-Belarus border.

Source: EPA

Prior strikes on the Druzhba pipeline network took place on August 13 and August 18, with the last attack having crippled a vital transformer station, which had previously but briefly halted oil flows.

It is certainly nothing new that Ukraine's intelligence and military is targeting Russian energy infrastructure; however, what is new is President Trump's surprise reaction:

U.S. President Donald Trump said he got “very angry” after Ukraine damaged a Russian oil pipeline that supplies his friend Viktor Orbán, Hungary's prime minister.

Trump responded to a note from Orbán, who complained about a Ukrainian drone attack overnight on Aug. 13 hitting the Druzhba oil pipeline, which supplies Hungary, Slovakia and other countries in Central Europe with Russian oil through Ukrainian territory.

“Viktor — I do not like hearing this. I am very angry about it. Tell Slovakia,” Trump wrote according to a letter published online by Orbán's ruling Fidesz party. “You are my great friend,” the U.S. president added.

Below is the letter as released by Hungarian state media and the prime minister's office:

The incident that Trump was responding to was an earlier August attack, which occurred "just before the historic meeting between President Trump and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin in Alaska" - as Orban wrote.

"Hungary supports Ukraine with electricity and petrol, in return they bomb pipeline that supply us. Very unfriendly move," Orban stated.

Trump might also condemn this newest Friday attack if he's asked about it by reporters - but there remains something deeply contradictory about the White House stance. Trump just this week in a Truth Social post seemed to say that Ukraine must go on the offensive against Russia if it hopes to achieve a peace deal which benefits Kiev. As the WSJ noted: 

By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia.

“It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!”

His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.

Trump seems to be signaling that he wants to see Ukraine go on the offensive, but refrain from hitting energy sites. This is at least consistent with Trump's wanting a 'freeze' on attacks targeting energy infrastructure, which had been enacted for a brief period months ago.

Hungary continues to rely heavily on Russian oil, even after most European nations have imposed sanctions and sought alternative sources.

Budapest's Russian energy supply is primarily delivered through the Druzhba pipeline, which passes through Belarus and Ukraine before reaching Hungary and Slovakia.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 13:00

FTC Sues Gym Chain For Making It 'Exceedingly Difficult' To Cancel Memberships

FTC Sues Gym Chain For Making It 'Exceedingly Difficult' To Cancel Memberships

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the operators of LA Fitness and other gyms over allegations that they make it “exceedingly difficult” for subscribers to cancel recurring gym memberships and related services, according to a statement issued by the agency on Aug. 20.

An LA Fitness location, in this file photo. Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

The FTC lawsuit was filed on Aug. 20 against Fitness International LLC and Fitness & Sports Clubs LLC, which together own and operate LA Fitness and other gym chains, including Esporta Fitness, City Sports Club, and Club Studio, which have more than 600 locations and more than 3.7 million members nationwide.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for violating the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and seeks monetary relief for consumers harmed by the alleged practices.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants use “difficult” cancellation procedures that are found to be time-consuming and inadequately disclosed to consumers when they join up. Members who wish to cancel must generate a cancellation form online and print it. Then, they need to submit the printed forms to the gym during limited hours.

The forms must be submitted to the “specific manager at the location who is authorized to process the forms,” and not just any gym employee, the complaint states. Another way to cancel is by certified or registered mail, which necessitates a visit to the post office.

The cancellation processes are “opaque, complicated, and demanding,” the FTC stated, adding that many consumers who have gone through the procedures “nevertheless find that they continue to be billed for their memberships.”

According to the agency, the gym operators have retained the system despite receiving tens of thousands of reports from consumers complaining about the cancellation procedures.

The companies offer gym memberships in the range of $30 to $299 per month, depending on additional services such as towel service or child care. The costs incurred by the consumer, while joining, include the first and last month’s dues, monthly recurring dues, and annual fees, the FTC stated.

“The FTC’s complaint describes a scenario that too many Americans have experienced—a gym membership that seems impossible to cancel,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The commission voted 3–0 to authorize the filing of the complaint.

According to ROSCA, an online seller must disclose all material terms before attempting to charge any consumer’s credit card, debit card, or bank account, and provide simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges. The FTC is the enforcer of this Act.

Gym Response

Fitness International President Jill Hill expressed disappointment with the FTC complaint in a company statement published on Aug. 20.

“The allegations are without merit, and the statute the FTC relies upon—the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), enacted almost 15 years ago—was designed to address only online retail transactions, does not require any specific method of cancellation, and has never before been applied to the health club industry. We remain confident that we will prevail in court,” Hill said.

She said most of the gym memberships were done at physical locations and not online. The companies have “launched an online cancellation option for all members, regardless of how they originally signed up,” Hill said.

“With just a few clicks, members may cancel online—a step we voluntarily implemented well ahead of regulatory deadlines,” she said.

The companies work to comply with all health club state laws regarding membership cancellations, according to Hill.

The FTC had announced a “Click-to-Cancel” rule in 2024 under the Biden administration. The rule, which went into effect earlier this year, was postponed by the Trump administration to give businesses additional time to comply.

The rule mandates that canceling a subscription must be as simple as signing up.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 12:40

Bill Ackman Is Promoting An Anti-Woke AI-Powered School Coming To New York

Bill Ackman Is Promoting An Anti-Woke AI-Powered School Coming To New York

Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is throwing his support behind Alpha School, a private education network that blends artificial intelligence with an unconventional approach to learning, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The school, which already operates in Texas, Florida, and California, plans to open a kindergarten-through-eighth-grade campus in Manhattan this fall.

Alpha’s model is unusual: students complete math, reading, and other fundamentals in just two hours a day using AI-driven software. The rest of the schedule is filled with activities meant to build confidence and practical skills, such as bike rides or drone workshops.

“We do not let anything—political, social issues—come in the way,” said co-founder MacKenzie Price. “We stay very much out of that.”

Price, who has become a prominent critic of traditional education on social media, launched Alpha more than a decade ago. The school employs “guides” rather than certified teachers and charges families between $40,000 and $65,000 annually, depending on location.

Ackman, best known for running the $20 billion firm Pershing Square, has recently taken on the role of informal booster for Alpha. He first heard about the school earlier this year and was impressed by its reliance on technology and its decision to avoid hot-button debates around diversity, equity, and inclusion. He has since hosted parents at Alpha’s Austin campus and is scheduled to appear on a panel about education at his Hamptons home, alongside Price, Alpha principal Joe Liemandt, and financier Michael Milken.

The Journal writes that though not an investor, Ackman’s enthusiasm has elevated the school’s profile. A person close to Alpha described him as a “de facto ambassador.” On social media, he praised its approach in what some observers saw as a glowing endorsement.

Ackman’s embrace of Alpha fits into his broader criticism of higher education, especially his attacks on Harvard University’s handling of campus antisemitism and its embrace of DEI initiatives. His online campaign against Harvard leadership last year helped push the school’s president to resign.

Alpha plans to expand quickly, with new schools opening in Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, California, and Puerto Rico. Price has said she may eventually raise outside investment to fund growth, but for now Ackman’s backing is giving the school an influential foothold in New York’s crowded private-education market.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 12:05

Bill Ackman Is Promoting An Anti-Woke AI-Powered School Coming To New York

Bill Ackman Is Promoting An Anti-Woke AI-Powered School Coming To New York

Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is throwing his support behind Alpha School, a private education network that blends artificial intelligence with an unconventional approach to learning, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The school, which already operates in Texas, Florida, and California, plans to open a kindergarten-through-eighth-grade campus in Manhattan this fall.

Alpha’s model is unusual: students complete math, reading, and other fundamentals in just two hours a day using AI-driven software. The rest of the schedule is filled with activities meant to build confidence and practical skills, such as bike rides or drone workshops.

“We do not let anything—political, social issues—come in the way,” said co-founder MacKenzie Price. “We stay very much out of that.”

Price, who has become a prominent critic of traditional education on social media, launched Alpha more than a decade ago. The school employs “guides” rather than certified teachers and charges families between $40,000 and $65,000 annually, depending on location.

Ackman, best known for running the $20 billion firm Pershing Square, has recently taken on the role of informal booster for Alpha. He first heard about the school earlier this year and was impressed by its reliance on technology and its decision to avoid hot-button debates around diversity, equity, and inclusion. He has since hosted parents at Alpha’s Austin campus and is scheduled to appear on a panel about education at his Hamptons home, alongside Price, Alpha principal Joe Liemandt, and financier Michael Milken.

The Journal writes that though not an investor, Ackman’s enthusiasm has elevated the school’s profile. A person close to Alpha described him as a “de facto ambassador.” On social media, he praised its approach in what some observers saw as a glowing endorsement.

Ackman’s embrace of Alpha fits into his broader criticism of higher education, especially his attacks on Harvard University’s handling of campus antisemitism and its embrace of DEI initiatives. His online campaign against Harvard leadership last year helped push the school’s president to resign.

Alpha plans to expand quickly, with new schools opening in Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, California, and Puerto Rico. Price has said she may eventually raise outside investment to fund growth, but for now Ackman’s backing is giving the school an influential foothold in New York’s crowded private-education market.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 12:05

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com

The Commerce Department just opened a Section 232 “national security” probe into imported wind turbines and parts—quietly on Aug. 13, publicly today. That matters because 232 isn’t a press release; it’s a legal on-ramp to more tariffs on top of the new 50% duty already applied to the steel and aluminum content in turbines and components.

Here’s the operational read: the U.S. wind build is heavily import-dependent for blades, drivetrains, and electrical systems. In 2023, the U.S. brought in about $1.7B of wind equipment, with roughly 41% from Mexico, Canada, and China. If you tax the metal inside the machine—and potentially layer more 232 duties later—you squeeze project profit margins, renegotiate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs—long-term contracts to sell the power), or delay FIDs. None of those outcomes lowers your Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE—think of it as the average lifetime price per unit of electricity once you add up all the costs).

Wood Mackenzie pegs the tariff bite at +7% for turbine costs (+5% total project costs) under the earlier tariff proposals; in a universal 25% tariff scenario, turbine costs could rise ~10% and LCOE up ~7%. And that was before Commerce slapped a 50% surcharge on the steel/aluminum content—so the floor just moved higher. Expect original equipment manufacturers to reroute supply chains, localize sub-assemblies, and raise prices anyway. Vestas has already said the quiet part out loud: these costs flow straight through to electricity prices.

Don’t confuse this with an offshore-only story. Onshore wind is where the bulk of U.S. volume lives, and it’s far more sensitive to every $/kW swing, gearbox delivery delay, and tower steel price jump. Section 232 is also being deployed against other “critical” imports (planes, chips, pharma), so wind isn’t a one-off carve-out—it’s part of a broader, durable trade posture that project finance now has to underwrite.

Winners and losers? Near-term winners include U.S. tower fabricators and any blade/drivetrain maker who can credibly and quickly localize. Losers are developers stuck with fixed-price PPAs and engineering firms with thin contingencies. Grid bottlenecks and permitting are still the bigger choke points, but tariffs aren’t a rounding error anymore—they’re line-item pain.

The probe suggests that “buy more domestic, pay more near-term” is policy, not rhetoric. Expect delayed Commercial Operation Dates (CODs—the day projects actually flip the switch and start earning revenue), tougher PPA negotiations, and a faster push to U.S. content. Wind still looks okay economically on paper, just with a higher metal cost and a thinner margin for error.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:45

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com

The Commerce Department just opened a Section 232 “national security” probe into imported wind turbines and parts—quietly on Aug. 13, publicly today. That matters because 232 isn’t a press release; it’s a legal on-ramp to more tariffs on top of the new 50% duty already applied to the steel and aluminum content in turbines and components.

Here’s the operational read: the U.S. wind build is heavily import-dependent for blades, drivetrains, and electrical systems. In 2023, the U.S. brought in about $1.7B of wind equipment, with roughly 41% from Mexico, Canada, and China. If you tax the metal inside the machine—and potentially layer more 232 duties later—you squeeze project profit margins, renegotiate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs—long-term contracts to sell the power), or delay FIDs. None of those outcomes lowers your Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE—think of it as the average lifetime price per unit of electricity once you add up all the costs).

Wood Mackenzie pegs the tariff bite at +7% for turbine costs (+5% total project costs) under the earlier tariff proposals; in a universal 25% tariff scenario, turbine costs could rise ~10% and LCOE up ~7%. And that was before Commerce slapped a 50% surcharge on the steel/aluminum content—so the floor just moved higher. Expect original equipment manufacturers to reroute supply chains, localize sub-assemblies, and raise prices anyway. Vestas has already said the quiet part out loud: these costs flow straight through to electricity prices.

Don’t confuse this with an offshore-only story. Onshore wind is where the bulk of U.S. volume lives, and it’s far more sensitive to every $/kW swing, gearbox delivery delay, and tower steel price jump. Section 232 is also being deployed against other “critical” imports (planes, chips, pharma), so wind isn’t a one-off carve-out—it’s part of a broader, durable trade posture that project finance now has to underwrite.

Winners and losers? Near-term winners include U.S. tower fabricators and any blade/drivetrain maker who can credibly and quickly localize. Losers are developers stuck with fixed-price PPAs and engineering firms with thin contingencies. Grid bottlenecks and permitting are still the bigger choke points, but tariffs aren’t a rounding error anymore—they’re line-item pain.

The probe suggests that “buy more domestic, pay more near-term” is policy, not rhetoric. Expect delayed Commercial Operation Dates (CODs—the day projects actually flip the switch and start earning revenue), tougher PPA negotiations, and a faster push to U.S. content. Wind still looks okay economically on paper, just with a higher metal cost and a thinner margin for error.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:45

Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks While Simultaneously Urging New Attacks On Russia

Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks While Simultaneously Urging New Attacks On Russia

Now, merely a week out from when Presidents Trump and Putin met in Alaska, the White House's admirable peace efforts seem to be unraveling and even hopelessly stalled. Many independent-minded analysts had from the very start said that this conflict will ultimately be settled on the battlefield. The Wall Street Journal too seems to be coming around to this view:

On Monday, President Trump boasted about quickly brokering peace to end the bloody Ukraine conflict. By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia.

“It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!”

His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.

Indeed this is another example of the West trying to have its cake and eat it too, as Trump strongly hints that Ukraine must take the offensive while simultaneously lamenting that Putin and Zelensky are not getting together in a hoped-for summit.

Trump is essentially saying Ukraine cannot win the war unless it launches attacks on Russia.

Associated Press/CBC

"It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country," Trump had explained further in his Truth Social statement.

The WSJ in its analysis then turns to one of the big factors which is sure to stymie talks from Moscow's point of view: security guarantees for Ukraine:

U.S. and European officials are still negotiating the makeup of a peacekeeping force that would aim to deter future Russian attacks against Ukraine if a peace deal was reached. Even that idea was quickly rebuffed by the Kremlin and raised questions about Trump’s willingness to commit to a major role for the U.S. military.

With much of his plans still unrealized, Trump is confronted with the uncertainties that have dogged him for the past seven months: How willing is he to pressure Putin, and how far is he willing to go in backing Zelensky?

As we highlighted before, the 'logic' of this is contradictory and will lead nowhere. Why would Russia agree to end its military operations if in the end NATO-like 'security guarantees' are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?...to quote Moon of Alabama.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the US and its Western allies on Thursday that President Putin has "repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Zelensky, if there is understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level have been worked out thoroughly" by experts and ministers.

To translate, Putin will only sit down with Zelensky if they are already at the goal line of having worked out a permanent peace deal. This has been reiterated in a Friday foreign ministry statement:

LAVROV: PUTIN-ZELENSKY MEETING NOT PLANNED YET — KREMLIN SAYS SUMMIT POSSIBLE ONLY AFTER AGENDA IS AGREED

And as RT outlines further, "Moscow maintains that any lasting settlement must eliminate the root causes of the conflict, address Russia’s security concerns, and recognize current territorial realities, including the status of Crimea and the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022." This means there must be the permanent neutrality of Ukraine, the formal ceding of territories, and that the Russian neighbor cease being militarized by NATO.

Reuters also describes, "Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine give up all of the eastern Donbas region, renounce ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country, three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters."

And per Bloomberg: "A full ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine remains unlikely this year, with even the prospect of a partial truce fading, according to JPMorgan emerging market and policy strategists."

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:25

Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks While Simultaneously Urging New Attacks On Russia

Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks While Simultaneously Urging New Attacks On Russia

Now, merely a week out from when Presidents Trump and Putin met in Alaska, the White House's admirable peace efforts seem to be unraveling and even hopelessly stalled. Many independent-minded analysts had from the very start said that this conflict will ultimately be settled on the battlefield. The Wall Street Journal too seems to be coming around to this view:

On Monday, President Trump boasted about quickly brokering peace to end the bloody Ukraine conflict. By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia.

“It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!”

His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.

Indeed this is another example of the West trying to have its cake and eat it too, as Trump strongly hints that Ukraine must take the offensive while simultaneously lamenting that Putin and Zelensky are not getting together in a hoped-for summit.

Trump is essentially saying Ukraine cannot win the war unless it launches attacks on Russia.

Associated Press/CBC

"It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country," Trump had explained further in his Truth Social statement.

The WSJ in its analysis then turns to one of the big factors which is sure to stymie talks from Moscow's point of view: security guarantees for Ukraine:

U.S. and European officials are still negotiating the makeup of a peacekeeping force that would aim to deter future Russian attacks against Ukraine if a peace deal was reached. Even that idea was quickly rebuffed by the Kremlin and raised questions about Trump’s willingness to commit to a major role for the U.S. military.

With much of his plans still unrealized, Trump is confronted with the uncertainties that have dogged him for the past seven months: How willing is he to pressure Putin, and how far is he willing to go in backing Zelensky?

As we highlighted before, the 'logic' of this is contradictory and will lead nowhere. Why would Russia agree to end its military operations if in the end NATO-like 'security guarantees' are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?...to quote Moon of Alabama.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the US and its Western allies on Thursday that President Putin has "repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Zelensky, if there is understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level have been worked out thoroughly" by experts and ministers.

To translate, Putin will only sit down with Zelensky if they are already at the goal line of having worked out a permanent peace deal. This has been reiterated in a Friday foreign ministry statement:

LAVROV: PUTIN-ZELENSKY MEETING NOT PLANNED YET — KREMLIN SAYS SUMMIT POSSIBLE ONLY AFTER AGENDA IS AGREED

And as RT outlines further, "Moscow maintains that any lasting settlement must eliminate the root causes of the conflict, address Russia’s security concerns, and recognize current territorial realities, including the status of Crimea and the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022." This means there must be the permanent neutrality of Ukraine, the formal ceding of territories, and that the Russian neighbor cease being militarized by NATO.

Reuters also describes, "Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine give up all of the eastern Donbas region, renounce ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country, three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters."

And per Bloomberg: "A full ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine remains unlikely this year, with even the prospect of a partial truce fading, according to JPMorgan emerging market and policy strategists."

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:25

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Revoke DEI-Related NIH Grants

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Revoke DEI-Related NIH Grants

By Matthew Vadum of Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on Aug. 21 to allow the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The new ruling clears the way for the funding reductions while litigation over the grants continues in the lower courts.

The justices filed five separate opinions explaining their votes.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to allow the grants to be cut.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted to deny the government’s request to rescind the funding.

The high court said it acted because the federal government faces the possibility that the grant monies, once paid out, may not be recovered.

Moreover, “the plaintiffs do not state that they will repay grant money if the Government ultimately prevails.”

The case is known as National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association.

The Department of Justice filed an emergency application with the nation’s highest court late last month, asking the justices to block a ruling by Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young, who found the cancellation was unlawful and ordered the government to restore the funding.

NIH began taking steps in February to end the grants that conflict with President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.

The NIH is the world’s largest government funder of biomedical research.

The emergency application stemmed from two lawsuits challenging the cuts to grants involving DEI, “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other issues.

The American Public Health Association described the cuts as an “ongoing ideological purge” of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI, or “other vague, now-forbidden language.” A coalition of 16 attorneys general, largely Democrats, alleged their public research institutions are facing harm because of the funding delays and cuts.

The district court directed the NIH “to continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the Administration’s priorities,” the department said in its filing.

“Following the change in Administration, the NIH identified, explained, and pursued new funding priorities. That is democracy at work, not, as the district court thought, proof of inappropriate ‘partisan[ship]’—let alone a permissible basis for setting agency action aside.”

In his written opinion, Gorsuch said the district court’s ruling upholding the grants conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California in April that let the Trump administration withdraw education-related grants.

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch said.

Unless we want anarchy to take over the federal judicial system, “a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be,” Gorsuch said, quoting a prior Supreme Court ruling.

In his dissenting opinion, Roberts said the district court ruling was justified.

“This relief—which has prospective and generally applicable implications beyond the reinstatement of specific grants—falls well within the scope of the District Court’s jurisdiction under the [federal] Administrative Procedure Act.”

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the dissent in part.

In her dissenting opinion, Jackson said the high court’s new ruling is “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” a reference to a fictional game featured in the comic strip, “Calvin and Hobbes.”

“Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:05

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Revoke DEI-Related NIH Grants

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Revoke DEI-Related NIH Grants

By Matthew Vadum of Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on Aug. 21 to allow the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The new ruling clears the way for the funding reductions while litigation over the grants continues in the lower courts.

The justices filed five separate opinions explaining their votes.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to allow the grants to be cut.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted to deny the government’s request to rescind the funding.

The high court said it acted because the federal government faces the possibility that the grant monies, once paid out, may not be recovered.

Moreover, “the plaintiffs do not state that they will repay grant money if the Government ultimately prevails.”

The case is known as National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association.

The Department of Justice filed an emergency application with the nation’s highest court late last month, asking the justices to block a ruling by Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young, who found the cancellation was unlawful and ordered the government to restore the funding.

NIH began taking steps in February to end the grants that conflict with President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.

The NIH is the world’s largest government funder of biomedical research.

The emergency application stemmed from two lawsuits challenging the cuts to grants involving DEI, “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other issues.

The American Public Health Association described the cuts as an “ongoing ideological purge” of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI, or “other vague, now-forbidden language.” A coalition of 16 attorneys general, largely Democrats, alleged their public research institutions are facing harm because of the funding delays and cuts.

The district court directed the NIH “to continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the Administration’s priorities,” the department said in its filing.

“Following the change in Administration, the NIH identified, explained, and pursued new funding priorities. That is democracy at work, not, as the district court thought, proof of inappropriate ‘partisan[ship]’—let alone a permissible basis for setting agency action aside.”

In his written opinion, Gorsuch said the district court’s ruling upholding the grants conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California in April that let the Trump administration withdraw education-related grants.

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch said.

Unless we want anarchy to take over the federal judicial system, “a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be,” Gorsuch said, quoting a prior Supreme Court ruling.

In his dissenting opinion, Roberts said the district court ruling was justified.

“This relief—which has prospective and generally applicable implications beyond the reinstatement of specific grants—falls well within the scope of the District Court’s jurisdiction under the [federal] Administrative Procedure Act.”

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the dissent in part.

In her dissenting opinion, Jackson said the high court’s new ruling is “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” a reference to a fictional game featured in the comic strip, “Calvin and Hobbes.”

“Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:05

Pages