Zero Hedge

Beijing Bans Alibaba, ByteDance From Buying Nvidia's Custom AI Chip

Beijing Bans Alibaba, ByteDance From Buying Nvidia's Custom AI Chip

China's Cyberspace Administration (CAC) has barred Alibaba, ByteDance, and other tech firms from purchasing Nvidia's AI chips, including the RTX Pro 6000D custom-built for the Chinese market. The timing underscores the ongoing Sino-US trade spat and tech showdown, as President Trump pushes to force a sale of China-associated TikTok to a U.S. company. Later this week, Trump is expected to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with trade and the fate of TikTok likely on the agenda. 

The Financial Times reports that the CAC is going beyond earlier restrictions on Nvidia's H20 chip. The curbs now extend to the RTX Pro 6000D, forcing major Chinese tech firms to abandon their planned large orders.

People familiar with the situation said some tech firms had tens of thousands of the RTX6000D, designed mainly for AI inference tasks, in the order pipeline. Regulators have concluded that domestic chips achieved the same performance as that of Nvidia's model. 

On Monday, China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) ruled that Nvidia violated anti-monopoly laws. While SAMR provided few details, the ruling stems from an antitrust probe that began with a preliminary investigation in 2020.

By Tuesday, the SCMP reported that the RTX6000D has so far received muted demand in China. JPMorgan told clients last month that it expected some 1.5 million RTX6000Ds to be produced in the second half of this year, while Morgan Stanley predicted in July that Nvidia would have 2 million RTX6000Ds in its pipeline. 

The RTX 6000D is based on Nvidia's latest Blackwell architecture with conventional graphics double data rate memory and a memory bandwidth of 1,398 gigabytes per second, just below the 1.4 terabyte threshold set by the U.S. in April. It was developed in part to fill a void left by the H20, which was banned from sale in April before that decision was reversed.

What's clear is that Beijing is putting pressure on Nvidia ahead of the Trump-Xi talks later this week - think of it as a form of leverage. 

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang expressed disappointment but acknowledged the geopolitical storm, noting that Nvidia can only serve markets where it's welcome.

"We can only be in service of a market if the country wants us to be," Huang told reporters in London. "I'm disappointed with what I see. But they have larger agendas to work out, between China and the U.S., and I'm understanding of that. We are patient about it."

Shares of Nvidia are down 1.5% in premarket trading in New York. On the year, shares are up 30%. The chart below shows that upside price action has stalled since mid-August. The $180 level is the current resistance.

. . . 

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 07:20

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns Of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns Of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Arabica coffee futures have soared over the past six weeks, reaching their highest level since February as traders closely monitor tightening supplies, adverse weather conditions in Brazil and other top growers, and uncertainty surrounding upcoming harvests, which has fueled a short squeeze.

Arabica, the premium bean used by Starbucks, Dunkin', and other chains, jumped as much as 6.2% to $4.21 on Monday, with momentum easing on Tuesday as $4.20 emerged as a line of resistance. Notably, futures have surged nearly 50% since early August.

In a mid-August report, we cited Maja Wallengren, Danish-born independent coffee market reporter and founder of SpillingTheBean, who warned that adverse weather across key coffee-producing areas in Brazil, including the entire Cerrado Mineiro region and parts of Southern Minas, had experienced "frost damage" severe enough to be a potential "death blow" to the 2026 harvest

Wallengren recently warned that "multiple and continuing weather disasters across the world's Arabica and Robusta producing countries" are producing an extreme situation where "there is ZERO POSSIBILTY for global production to recover until 2030 and it's a FACT that The World IS Running Out of Coffee !!"

In robusta markets...

According to Judy Ganes, president of J. Ganes Consulting, the weather in Brazil is dry but not abnormally so. She told Bloomberg that the market is "on anxiety" because of separate weather concerns that may impact bean sizes

While the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture report forecasts global coffee output at around 178.7 million bags in 2025–26, weather risks remain on analysts' minds. Ganes noted that the rally in coffee futures is being driven more by financial positioning and tariffs than by fundamentals.

"We should be seeing prices coming down unless there is some major issue with the flowering for the Brazilian 26-27 crop, and that story isn't written yet. Even with the couple of cold snaps, you could still wind up with a decent crop," Ganes said, adding, "To me, this is all financial, and it's being tripped up by the tariffs."

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 06:55

The Rise Of Neo-Feudalism: Germany's Conservatives Bow To Socialist Wealth Taxes

The Rise Of Neo-Feudalism: Germany's Conservatives Bow To Socialist Wealth Taxes

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

In Germany, a heated debate has erupted over the taxation of inheritances and wealth—and the Union (CDU/CSU) isn’t even attempting to curb these anti-civilizational trends. In fact, it has become part of the problem.

Unassuming, loyal voters of the Union parties are rubbing their eyes in disbelief these weeks. Faced with the envy-driven push by the Social Democrats for higher inheritance taxes and the possible reintroduction of a wealth tax, many are shocked—or even repelled—by the statements of their own political representatives.

Union Politicians Fuel the Debate

When it comes to citizens’ lawful property and how they use it, Union circles have recently sounded like this: "Those who already had, always gain more. In recent years, particularly during the low-interest phase, wealth grew almost automatically, without much personal effort. Property values, stock values, and more—this is a problem of wealth distribution." - Jens Spahn, CDU parliamentary group leader.

His colleague Dennis Radtke, social zealot and head of the Christian Democratic Workers’ Association (CDA), goes even further: "We should examine the exemptions in inheritance and gift taxes, under the concept of wealth assessment. These exemptions allow billions in wealth to be gifted and inherited without a single euro in taxes paid… This wouldn’t be a tax increase, just closing loopholes.“

In the view of this gentleman, the fundamental act of wealth creation—which, in a healthy bourgeois society, extends one’s economic actions to one’s descendants—is just a “loophole” if the state cannot freely access our assets.

This makes one thing clear: the party cartel is united when it comes to power. L’État, c’est moi! The citizen is nothing more than a supplier of political power, packaged in liquidable assets.

Generational Contract and Bourgeois Values

We can expect this understanding of the state from Germany’s socialist parties, whether the BSW, The Left, or the Greens. The openly socialist-populist SPD has long since fallen to the point of seeing citizens as nothing more than cows to be milked. Since the disastrous years under Angela Merkel, any voter should have realized that a party embracing open-border policies, eco-socialist climate politics, and bellicist tendencies—as seen in the Ukraine conflict—can no longer serve as a bourgeois counterweight.

Thanks to years of media propaganda, however, many Germans still perceive the chancellor as a representative of bourgeois values. Closer inspection reveals that the green-socialist spectrum of parties—including the Union—ultimately follows the same globalist ideology.

Undermining the family as society’s cornerstone, promoting state-driven culture and media influence, they all follow an unmistakably socialist script.

The centralization of political power in Brussels and dramatically increasing censorship pair with statist economic policies, whose latest victims are German industry. The inheritance and wealth tax debate fits perfectly into this ideological framework, trampling the true generational contract—between parents and heirs.

Neo-Feudal Tendencies

A power structure that manages to secure majority approval for substance taxes—whether inheritance or wealth taxes—through a debate framed around “justice” inevitably becomes a neo-feudal apparatus. Every form of wealth use—portfolio holdings, gifts, or inheritance—comes under arbitrary state administration. Every house, every stock account an individual acquires becomes a fief, requiring continuous tribute to avoid full expropriation.

The media-endorsed debate over “substance” or “resentment” taxes is thus anti-civilizational, anti-bourgeois, and devastating to capital formation. It accelerates pauperization trends now visible throughout the country.

Bowing to the Cult of Resentment

Jens Spahn, Lars Klingbeil, and their peers are archetypical career politicians, expertly embedded in a parasitic power apparatus that has long since detached from the economic middle class. It does not serve the population; it opposes it. Politically and philosophically, EU Europe—largely shaped by German policy—stands at a crossroads of cyclical overreach.

The apparatus acts grotesquely and invasively. It systematically violates citizens’ privacy and has become a bureaucratic perpetual motion machine—a self-destructive economic mechanism. Laws like the combustion engine ban or the heating regulations—aggressive expropriation policies—most vividly illustrate the neo-feudal character of today’s European politics. Bureaucracy embodies the spirit of pure dispossession. It is almost a late-Roman scenario, a Diocletianic system in which citizens—never mind the proposed “15-minute cities”—are reduced to mere state fodder. You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy!

The pitiful capitulation of Union politicians to the Social Democrats’ cult of resentment is more than a political gesture. Representatives who advocate neo-feudal policies do not represent the sovereign—they place themselves above it, distributing fiefs. It is an anti-civilizational act that pulverizes the true generational contract, the unrestricted right to inherit and own property. With this step, the CDU has definitively exited the block of bourgeois representation. At its core, it is now a statist, largely socialist party, openly showing its true color. And that color is red.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 06:30

Putin Boasts 100,000 Troops Are Participating In Belarus-Russia Drills

Putin Boasts 100,000 Troops Are Participating In Belarus-Russia Drills

Russia's President Putin on Tuesday boasted that some 100,000 military personnel are taking part in the major joint Russia-Belarus war games called "Zapad-2025" - which has deeply alarmed Poland and other so-called NATO eastern flank countries.

The drills have been going for several days, and come to a close on Tuesday, and have focused on the stated goal of testing defense of the 'Union State' - and to repel all potential aggression.

Via Sputnik stillframe

Putin actually visited the Mulino training ground, a main staging location for the drills, in Russia's Nizhny Novgorod Region. Aspects to the exercise are happening a sites both in Belarus and Russia.

In total, the exercise ensued at 41 training grounds, with the some 100,000 troops utilizing 10,000 weapons and equipment systems, according to fresh words of Putin. 

"Moreover, this is all modern equipment used in practical combat work, and the plans for the exercise are based on the experience gained during the special military operation. Ten thousand types of equipment, including 333 aircraft: tactical aviation, strategic aviation and military transport aviation. More than 247 ships are also used: surface, submarine and support vessels," Putin was quoted in Russian media as saying.

The drills also included twenty-five foreign delegations which participated. Other nations sent representatives to observe. As we noted earlier, one notable presence was a Pentagon delegation.

US military officers were on hand to observe the war games, and were photographed, in what was described as a surprise visit wherein Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin instructed that the US officials could look at "whatever is of interest for you."

According to a description in Reuters:

"Who would have thought how the morning of another day of the Zapad-2025 exercise would begin?" it [the defense ministry] said in a statement noting their presence among representatives from 23 countries including two other NATO member states — Turkey and Hungary.

The ministry released video showing two uniformed U.S. officers thanking Khrenin for the invitation and shaking his hand. "We will show whatever is of interest for you. Whatever you want. You can go there and see, talk to people," the minister told the Americans, who declined to speak to reporters.

State media reporters were on hand to capture the visit...

This development was also unprecedented and highly unusual given Belarus has been Moscow's closest partner in executing the 'special military operation' in neighboring Ukraine, having utilized its territory to send tens of thousands of Russian troops into Ukraine in February 2022 and after.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 05:45

AfD Triples Support In Germany's Most Populous State, CDU & SPD Both Lose Votes

AfD Triples Support In Germany's Most Populous State, CDU & SPD Both Lose Votes

Via Remix News,

In the first major state elections since the new government, North Rhine-Westphalia went to the polls, with the Christian Democrats (CDU) coming out on top while the Social Democrats (SPD) crashed in support. Meanwhile, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now the third-strongest party in the state, more than tripling its support from the last elections.

The state, which has 14 million eligible voters, served as a major litmus test for the new government.

The CDU was the clear winner, earning 33 percent of the vote, compared to its 2020 total of 34.2 percent.

The AfD was seen as growing its support substantially, jumping to 14.5 percent of the vote, a clear jump from 5.1 percent in the last elections. However, the party actually received a higher share of the vote during the federal elections, meaning support for the party appears to be stagnating.

Nevertheless, the establishment views the AfD results as a worrying sign.

“This result should give us pause and cannot let us sleep peacefully,” said North Rhine-Westphalia Minister-President Hendrik Wüst, of the CDU, to the “Report from Berlin.”

The left-wing SPD was seen as one of the big losers, falling to 22 percent in what was once considered one of its heartlands. In 1994, the party received 42 percent of the vote.

The far-left Green Party also sunk dramatically, going from 20 percent to 13.4 percent.

The local elections could have implications for the federal coalition between the CDU and SPD. With the SPD losing votes, it could turn more sharply against the CDU, with the two parties already sharply clashing over judicial appointments.

The votes were for thousands of candidates, including those running for district councilor, mayor, districting administrators, and other positions.

However, a looming crisis has to do with the fact that a majority of municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy. Only 16 out of 427 were able to put forward balanced budgets in 2024.

A number of run-off votes will also be taking place on Sept. 28. The CDU and SPD are combining forces to block AfD candidates. For the first time, the AfD will be in mayoral run-offs, including Norbert Emmerich in Gelsenkirchen, who scored 29.8 percent of the vote. However, he is far behind the SPD opponent, Andrea Henze, who received 37.1 percent of the votes.

In many of the other races, the AfD candidate appears to have little chance of victory.

NRW woes

Unemployment is growing in the German state, with 800,000 jobless reported in August. Bankruptcies are also growing, jumping to 3,190 in the first half of 2025, a 17.2 percent increase.

The AfD is still celebrating its results. Party co-leader Alice Weidel celebrated on X, writing it was a “great success.” However, the actual totals for the AfD turned out to be slightly less than exit polls initially predicted.

The AfD, however, continues to grow in strength in the east of the country. Furthermore, new polls show the party hitting close to 20 percent in Bavaria.

The party will still need to boost its support to close to 20 percent in North Rhine-Westphalia and other Western states if it ever hopes to secure the support of 30 percent of voters nationwide, one of its key goals. If it ever manages to secure such a voting share, it would make forming coalitions without the party at the federal level nearly impossible.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 05:00

'Eastern Sentry': The New NATO Initiative To Protect The Eastern Flank

'Eastern Sentry': The New NATO Initiative To Protect The Eastern Flank

Some eight NATO allies have prepared operation 'Eastern Sentry' following last week's alleged Russian drone breach of Poland. It is a new joint military mission to bolster defense of Europe's eastern flank, also after Romania had more recently reported a Russian drone incursion, resulting in the scrambling of fighter jets to track it.

"Following the Russian drone incursions into Poland, I have decided to deploy three Rafale fighter jets to contribute to the protection of Polish airspace and of NATO’s Eastern Flank together with our Allies," President Emmanuel Macron announced on X this week. Along with France, the effort includes the UK, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Spain, and The Netherlands. More nations are expected to join.

Via Army Recognition 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed that his country will deploy Royal Air Force jets to Poland, while Italy will contribute two Eurofighter jets, and Germany has readied four Eurofighters. Denmark will also sent jets, and Czech Mi-171S helicopters have also arrived in Poland. Over 150 NATO troops have also initially arrived along with the equipment.

Meanwhile, eastern European and Baltic countries are already calling for more, including:

Anti-drone defense systems in NATO countries still need to be developed, Latvia's President Edgars Rinkevics told a press conference on Tuesday.

NATO on Friday launched "Eastern Sentry," a new military mission to bolster defense of Europe's eastern flank in response to Russian drone incursions into Polish airspace last week.

The Washington Post wrote on Monday, "The incident raised serious questions about the alliance’s readiness to counter the relatively cheap, highly maneuverable but devastatingly destructive unmanned aerial vehicles that have redefined modern warfare since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022."

Additionally, in a Monday interview, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called on NATO countries to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

"We as NATO and the EU could be capable of doing this, but it is not a decision that Poland can make alone; it can only be made with its allies," he said.

"Protection for our population — for example, from falling debris — would naturally be greater if we could combat drones and other flying objects beyond our national territory … If Ukraine were to ask us to shoot them down over its territory, that would be advantageous for us. If you ask me personally, we should consider it," he added.

The Kremlin has essentially called this 'idiotic' and has made clear this would assure a direct Russia-NATO clash, likely leading to WW3. Much will depend on what Washington says, and its own potential role in 'Eastern Sentry'.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 04:15

Germany's Shadow Budgets: Bundesbank Warns Of Fiscal Collapse

Germany's Shadow Budgets: Bundesbank Warns Of Fiscal Collapse

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

With the creation of “special funds” and shadow budgets, the German government is evading fiscal transparency and undermining parliamentary control – a practice now sharply criticized by both the Bundesbank and the Federal Audit Office.

France, meanwhile, offers a warning of where this path leads. Political chaos in Paris culminated in fiscal humiliation last week when Fitch Ratings downgraded French sovereign debt from AA– to A+. France has maneuvered itself into a debt spiral, fueled by unchecked government spending and a misguided attempt to paper over social fractures with cheap credit.

Shadow Budgets and Statism

Germany, instead of avoiding France’s mistakes, appears determined to follow them. The fiscal discipline that characterized the postwar era is long gone. Across party lines, there is consensus in Berlin: with creative accounting tricks in the form of “special funds,” the debt brake can simply be ignored. The pinnacle of this new strategy is Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s trillion-euro debt package, which includes a €500 billion special fund.

The official justification is noble: defense spending must not be constrained by the bond market, and Germany’s crumbling infrastructure must be modernized. Packaged nicely in the media, the German public is expected to accept this new mountain of debt. After all, it is supposedly “for the greater good.”

But the German Taxpayers’ Association has labeled these special funds exactly what they are: a colossal debt-shuffling scheme. In practice, spending that should be tax-financed is quietly offloaded into shadow budgets that rely on new borrowing.

Manipulation Everywhere

The bond market itself has become little more than a derivative of monetary policy. Berlin, like its European neighbors, is clearly relying on the European Central Bank to keep the debt pile liquid and to step in whenever investors retreat.

Together with Brussels’ interventionism, this has created a political framework that openly encourages state overreach. Parliamentary oversight has all but disappeared. More than half of Germany’s GDP already passes through state hands – a level of intervention unthinkable a generation ago.

Berlin’s strategic consensus is striking: the very state that manufactured the crisis – through suffocating regulation, a self-inflicted energy disaster, bloated public finances, and crushing taxation – now claims it will solve the crisis by doubling down on intervention. The logic is that of a kleptocratic alcoholic in a bar: he runs a tab, borrows from his neighbors, and when generosity runs out, steals directly from the counter. Ultimately, it is this debt binge, this addiction to central planning, that will bring Germany down as both a political and economic model.

There is little meaningful opposition. Whether in parliament or in the intellectual sphere, critics lack the resonance to form a powerful public phalanx against this destructive policy path.

Criticism From Unlikely Quarters

Now, however, criticism has emerged from an unexpected source: the German Bundesbank. Rarely intervening in day-to-day politics, the central bank used its August monthly report to criticize the use of special funds. It warned bluntly that billions earmarked for local governments would likely be diverted to fill existing budget gaps rather than finance infrastructure and climate projects, as promised.

The Bundesbank also pointed to the absence of effective structures for efficiency control. By outsourcing vast parts of the federal budget into special funds, Berlin is obscuring the country’s true fiscal position and undermining budget discipline.

Criticism of runaway statism is nothing new. What is striking, however, is that core state institutions such as the Bundesbank are now joining the chorus. The Bundesbank projects Germany’s deficit will climb to 4% of GDP over the next two years – and that is under the optimistic assumption that the economy does not deteriorate further.

Its report leaves little doubt: the €100 billion in funds allocated to states and municipalities will likely be misused, rather than going into the infrastructure investments so loudly promised to the public.

The Firefighting State

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens – at least those still in the productive economy – waste their days in crumbling public transport, endless traffic jams on decaying highways, or waiting at the foot of collapsing bridges.

Germany, according to the Bundesbank, is operating in “firefighting mode” – patching up budgetary gaps and social spending programs instead of addressing structural problems. Much of the new spending, it warns, risks being consumed by short-term consumption rather than long-term investment.

The central bank has therefore proposed reforms to strictly limit borrowing capacity and to enforce transparency. At best, it sees special funds with their own borrowing authority as a temporary solution – one that would still require strict parliamentary oversight.

Support From the Federal Audit Office

The Bundesbank’s stance is reinforced by the Federal Audit Office, which for months has been calling for tighter, more targeted use of new credit funds. It has demanded that Berlin reserve the right to claw back funds that are misused – a measure based on bitter experience. Past budgets, from integration funds to inflated COVID-19 aid packages, were set high precisely so that excess money could later be diverted to plug welfare deficits.

The trick is simple: new debt is hidden from the public, while the true costs are shifted into the future. A short-term stimulus effect may provide the ruling coalition with breathing space against rising opposition – but at the price of structural decline.

Straight Toward Insolvency

That Berlin is using shadow budgets to buy time is hardly surprising. There is bipartisan conviction in the capital that creative accounting and oversized state demand can somehow solve both the fiscal crisis and the economic malaise.

But this is pure Keynesian delusion. The state as Leviathan, pretending to be omnipotent – and yet repeatedly colliding with reality. When central planning fails, the blame is always shifted onto the bond market, which stubbornly refuses to accept the illusion that debt-financed interventions can solve everything.

Regardless of how it is structured, the “special fund” is nothing but a monument to political failure. Responsibility lies squarely with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who endorsed the scheme both for coalition reasons and out of personal conviction.

The principle remains clear: every euro siphoned from private capital markets and funneled into the redistribution machine of the state is a lost euro. And every debt-financed state policy leaves behind nothing but new liabilities – to be paid later through taxes or inflation.

There is no free lunch. Only bad policy.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 03:30

Poland Receives Single Largest Delivery Of M1 Abrams Tanks From US

Poland Receives Single Largest Delivery Of M1 Abrams Tanks From US

The Western allies continue to bolster defenses of the largest NATO 'eastern flank' country which borders Ukraine, parallel to Russia ramping up its drone and missile attacks across the war-ravaged country.

Poland this week has received 38 new M1A2 Abrams tanks from the United States, marking the largest single delivery so far under a defense agreement signed in 2022. It was the third delivery under the contract.

AFP/Getty Images

The delivery brings the total number of American-made tanks delivered to Poland to 85, with more expected through 2026, based on the contract.

The shipment included additional support equipment, such as 14 recovery vehicles designed to tow damaged tanks off the battlefield. The deal will also see the transfer of bridging systems and ammunition for the tanks.

The Polish armed forces already possess German Leopard 2s, South Korean K2 Black Panthers, and Polish-made PT-91s - but the Abrams are part of an effort of Warsaw to rapidly modernize its forces, with the Ukraine war raging just next door.

The very first shipment was back in January of this year, and included over two dozen of the US main battle tanks. In total the contract stipulates 250 M1A2 SEPv3 tanks to be delivered through 2026. These have enhanced packages for greater maneuverability, advanced tech, and greater crew protections than the standard Abrams.

American military magazine Stripes previously wrote:

For the Polish army, the Abrams tank serves as the centerpiece of a modernization effort that has picked up momentum in the aftermath of Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Patriot missiles, Apache attack helicopters, High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and F-35 fighter jets are other major weapons systems that Warsaw has been busy adding to its arsenal.

Patriot missiles, Apache attack helicopters, High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and F-35 fighter jets are other major weapons systems that Warsaw has been busy adding to its arsenal.

In the wake of last week's Russian drone incursions into Polish airspace, Warsaw officials have only grown more hawkish in wanting to 'stand up' to Russia.

For example, in a Monday interview, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called on NATO countries to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

"We as NATO and the EU could be capable of doing this, but it is not a decision that Poland can make alone; it can only be made with its allies," he said.

Commenting on the drone breach incident, The Washington Post observed on Monday, "The incident raised serious questions about the alliance’s readiness to counter the relatively cheap, highly maneuverable but devastatingly destructive unmanned aerial vehicles that have redefined modern warfare since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022."

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 02:45

Israeli Air Defense In Cyprus Extends Intel Reach Over Turkey: 'More Dangerous Than S-300s'

Israeli Air Defense In Cyprus Extends Intel Reach Over Turkey: 'More Dangerous Than S-300s'

Via Middle East Eye

Israel delivered advanced air defense systems to Cyprus last week, marking the third shipment since December amid rising tensions with Turkey, sources familiar with the matter told Middle East Eye.

A video published on Thursday showed a truck passing through the port of Limassol transporting components of the Barak MX system, an aerial interceptor capable of striking threats up to 150km away. The Cypriot news site Reporter confirmed that the Barak MX system has now been fully delivered and is expected to become operational this year.

An IAI Barak MX air defense launcher in Ashdod, Israel, via Reuters.

The delivery comes after Shay Gal, vice president of external relations at Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), which manufactures the Barak MX, argued in a July article that Israel should reconsider its approach toward Cyprus and devise military plans to “liberate” the island's north from Turkish forces.

“Israel, in coordination with Greece and Cyprus, must prepare a contingency operation for liberating the island’s north,” Gal wrote. “Such an operation would neutralize Turkish reinforcement capabilities from the mainland, eliminate air-defense systems in northern Cyprus, destroy intelligence and command centers, and ultimately remove Turkish forces, restoring internationally recognized Cypriot sovereignty.”

Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 after a failed coup aimed at uniting the island with Greece. Since then, Cyprus has remained divided between the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus in the south and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Ankara.

So far, Ankara has remained silent about the newly deployed systems, which carry advanced surveillance and intelligence-gathering functions through their 3D radar. With a range of up to 460km, the system provides a “digital umbrella” that covers a significant part of southern Turkey’s airspace.

Turkey and southern Cyprus nearly came to war in 1997 after the latter attempted to acquire two Russian-made S-300 air defense missile systems, triggering threats of an all-out military response from Ankara.

The crisis ended when Greece accepted the S-300s on its territory, while Cyprus sought alternative systems. “This is a system far more dangerous than the S-300, which [southern Cyprus] ordered from Russia in 1997 but never deployed,” said Arda Mevlutoglu, a prominent Turkish defence analyst.

“Given the current state of military ties between Israel and the Greek Cypriot administration, this powerful air defense system and radar will undoubtedly become a central element of Israel’s intelligence network in the eastern Mediterranean.”

According to Mevlutoglu, the Barak MX poses a significant threat to Turkish air and ground forces both in Cyprus and across the wider eastern Mediterranean, as its radar is also capable of detecting artillery, mortar and rocket battery fire within 100km.

However, Reporter quoted a source suggesting that the Cypriot version of the Barak MX might not include all of its advertised features, since the system is customised for each client nation.

Yanki Bagcioglu, a retired rear admiral and deputy chairman of the Turkish opposition CHP party, called the system’s deployment a violation of international law. “This step will destabilise the fragile balance in the eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus, while directly threatening Turkey’s national security,” he said.

Via BBC

Cypriot Defense Minister Vasilis Palmas defended the acquisition on Tuesday, arguing that his government has an obligation to develop credible deterrence capabilities as “Turkey continues to occupy” the island.

Asked whether the Barak MX purchase was part of a defense framework with Israel, Palmas stressed that Cyprus’s decisions on armaments are a sovereign matter. “Any confrontation between Israel and Turkey does not concern us, except in the sense that we follow the geopolitical developments in our region. Our primary duty is to protect ourselves,” he said.

Turkish security sources told Turkish media that the systems are currently undergoing tests at Paphos air base and have not yet been placed into active service. They added that subsequent Israeli shipments are being closely monitored.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 02:00

Weaponized Scoops: New Russiagate Documents Expose Media/Government Collusion

Weaponized Scoops: New Russiagate Documents Expose Media/Government Collusion

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearInvestigations,

Recently declassified documents indicate that people close to former FBI Director James Comey and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff were connected to leaks of classified information to prominent reporters designed to portray Donald Trump and his allies as being in league with Russia.   

Written in 2017, the FBI documents expose how selected Washington reporters, including Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post and Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, scored a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning scoops in 2017 by repeating false and inflammatory leaks during President Trump’s first term.   

Much of their reporting has been debunked – and shown to be part of a smear campaign by high-ranking officials to undermine Trump, but the identities of those leakers have remained hidden because of the government’s apparent unwillingness to expose its own and the refusal of reporters to identify the people who misled them and the nation.    

Although the heavily redacted recent disclosures do not specifically identify the suspected leakers, an RCI analysis of the documents strongly suggests that people close to Comey and Schiff, among others, were feeding the reporters information to advance the Russiagate hoax.   

The documents reveal a cascade of misdeeds and failures. These include the effort of government officials to create and leak misleading classified information to favored reporters and the failure of reporters to scrutinize the information they were given before rushing it into print; and the subsequent failure of federal investigators to hold anyone accountable for the breaches of security.   

The documents also detail the incestuous nature of media-government relationships inside the D.C. Beltway. In some cases, spouses and friends of government officials and reporters were used to spread damaging misinformation about Trump, making it difficult for federal investigators to follow the trail of illegal disclosures.   

All of these cozy friendships of leakers and leaker recipients, many of whom are married to each other, are precisely why reporters adore hiding their sourcing behind walls of ‘senior administration officials’ or ‘senior U.S. officials’ and associated disguises,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, a Washington-based journalism watchdog group.    

‘Topple the Administration’

The new disclosures include the previously sealed testimony of an FBI informant who’d worked on the Democratic side of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for more than a decade, who told agents that “all hell broke loose” after Trump’s surprising 2016 election win. In February 2017, he asserted, Schiff, then a House member, hatched a plan to weaponize U.S. intelligence to smear Trump in the media as a Kremlin conspirator with the goal of triggering his impeachment. Schiff was the ranking Democratic member of the committee at the time.   

“Leaking the information was one way to topple the administration,” the source told the FBI in August 2017, adding that “everything is directed at Trump and trying to get him impeached.”   

To that end, Schiff formed a “Russia team” within the committee to view and disseminate classified material on Trump that it requested from the CIA and FBI, the informant said. Main team members allegedly included Schiff staffers Rheanne Wirkkala and Timothy Bergreen. Schiff’s staff director, Michael Bahar, and his communications director, Patrick Boland, allegedly “orchestrated” the smear campaign. 

A spokesperson for Sen. Schiff "categorically" denied the allegation against Boland, now Schiff's chief of staff, and claimed that the FBI informant was "a disgruntled former staffer who was fired by the House Intelligence Committee in early 2017 for a pattern of inappropriate conduct, including mistreatment of staff and compromising activity on foreign official travel."

Records, however, show the informant left the committee in September 2017, and had made his allegations to the FBI in interviews with agents while he was still on staff, according to FBI-302 summaries.

Wirkkala, Bergreen and Bahar did not respond to requests for comment.  

The FBI source, “who considered Schiff a friend,” told agents that he was called into the 2017 meeting during which Schiff specifically authorized leaking classified “dirt“ to reporters.   

“In this meeting, SCHIFF stated that the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States Donald J. Trump,” said the FBI interview report, known as an FD-302, which noted that the whistleblower memorialized the Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, staff meeting in an email he sent to himself the next day.  “SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”  

Schiff has denied the allegations. The FBI subpoenaed some of the California lawmaker’s communications records, but never charged him with a crime. (Schiff is currently under investigation for possible mortgage fraud.)   

The anonymous whistleblower – whose name is blacked out in the FBI reports, but according to multiple sources is Robert Minehart – worked as policy advisor to Schiff on the minority side of the intelligence committee. He first joined the committee in 2005, after then-ranking Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California recruited him from the National Security Agency, where he worked as an engineer. 

Minehart left the panel in late 2017 after he said Schiff loyalists “marginalized” him for complaining to both the committee’s security chief and the CIA’s inspector general about “the rampant leaking” of classified information. He told FBI field agents he believed the classified leaks were “unethical and treasonous,” but was reluctant to complain about them to the FBI congressional liaison office because he viewed the officials there as “too embedded with HPSCI staff and cannot trust them.”  

Former committee staffers who worked with Minehart said he was a well-respected intelligence professional who was concerned with safeguarding classified information. They viewed him as credible, reliable, and nonpartisan.   

“I remember Bob as a former NSA [engineer] who worked the NSA account for the Democrats,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst who served under former GOP House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers. “But he was never part of the Democrat partisanship on the committee.”   

Federal Election Commission records show Minehart has donated to both Democratic and Republican congressional candidates. Though he hasn’t contributed directly to any presidential campaign, he gave money to a PAC tied to Trump in both 2022 and 2023. Attempts to reach Minehart, now a technology consultant based in Northern Virginia, were unsuccessful.   

Leaking to the Press

Starting in 2016, FBI investigative documents show that Ellen Nakashima was the go-to reporter for intelligence community leaks on Trump and later became the subject of four separate leak investigations. In June of that year, she broke the seminal story in the Washington Post, alleging that “Russian government hackers penetrated DNC.” This claim, which was the first effort to insert Russia into the 2016 election, was advanced by the

Democratic cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike. As RCI has previously reported, CrowdStrike’s president, Shawn Henry, later confessed in closed-door congressional testimony that CrowdStrike lacked “concrete evidence” to support its finding that Moscow was to blame for stealing emails and other DNC data published by WikiLeaks. Nakashima, who reported that the DNC breach was foreign “espionage” and not the work of criminal hackers, never revisited her original story after contradictory facts emerged.   

In early December 2016, Nakashima and her colleagues were leaked a “secret CIA assessment” that found Russia was trying “to help Trump win the White House,” according to her scoop. Nakashima reported that this was the “consensus view” of the Intelligence Community, citing “a senior U.S. official” who’d been briefed on the material. Nakashima quoted Schiff at the end of her story. Later documents showed that there was no consensus. Many CIA and other intel analysts dissented from the view and believed Moscow’s aim was simply to undermine confidence in U.S. elections.   

Less than three months after Trump took office, Nakashima was the lead reporter on another seeming blockbuster story advancing the Russian “collusion” narrative pushed by Democrats – that the FBI had obtained a wiretap warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as “an agent of Russia.” FISA information is highly classified and almost never disclosed. But Nakashima was the beneficiary of the unusual leak, and on April 11, 2017, she reported: “This is the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump associate was in touch with Russian agents.” 

Only, it turns out that Page never met with the Russian agents, and the wiretap warrant application – later invalidated by the FISA court – was also based on the bogus Clinton-funded opposition research known as the Steele dossier. She attributed her reporting to unnamed “U.S. officials.” Deep in her article, she once again quoted Schiff on the record.    

The Schiff staffers who allegedly funneled secrets to Nakashima gathered them from CIA and FBI “read rooms” Schiff had asked the agencies to set up, according to information provided to the FBI.   

The documents indicate that some of the leaks may have been laundered through a “cut-out” who happened to be the husband of a Schiff loyalist on the Democratic staff of the House Intelligence Committee. The husband, then a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, knew Nakashima from their days working together at the Post.   

Though their names are hidden under redactions, federal authorities confirmed that the former Schiff staffer who allegedly divulged the information is Rheanne Wirkkala, and the “cut-out” is her husband Ian Duncan, then a reporter for the Sun.   

“[Wirkkala]’s spouse has worked with Ellen Nakishima [sic] of the Washington Post,” the FBI report states. “[Wirkkala] provided information to her husband who had brokered it out to other reporters,” including allegedly Nakashima.   

A Democrat donor, Wirkkala also helped Schiff prosecute the first impeachment of Trump in 2019 as his deputy director of investigations.   

In 2021, Wirkkala left the House Intelligence Committee to take a high-level Pentagon post in the Biden administration. She now works for Clarion Strategies, a D.C.-based consulting firm co-founded by Julianne Smith, who appears in a recently declassified intelligence report as the Hillary Clinton campaign adviser who solicited Obama White House officials for compromising material on Trump and Russia in 2016. President Obama’s former Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is a principal in the firm.   

Wirkkala did not respond to requests for comment. Her husband, Duncan, is now working at the Washington Post.   

Records also show that Nakashima was also communicating with former senior Senate Intelligence Committee staffer James Wolfe, who was investigated for leaking classified materials on Trump aide Page and ultimately convicted of lying to FBI agents about contacting Nakashima and other reporters.   

From December 2015 to June 2017, Nakashima and Wolfe exchanged emails at least five times, according to court records. In one exchange, Nakashima allegedly sent Wolfe a code to use in an encrypted messaging application. In another, she allegedly discussed “obtaining the SSCI’s public Wi-Fi password.”   

During a March 2021 event addressing “National Security Leaks” – where she shared the stage with a prime driver of the Russiagate hoax, former CIA Director John Brennan – Nakashima dismissed complaints by media critics that she acts as a “stenographer” for the Intelligence community. “The public has a wildly inaccurate view of how I as a national security reporter go about my job,” she said at the symposium. “It’s not that I get a story because someone decided to leak it to me and hand it to me on a silver platter.”   

In a recent statement, Post Executive Editor Matt Murray defended the veteran reporter’s integrity, asserting: “For three decades, Ellen Nakashima has been one of the most careful, fair-minded, and highly regarded reporters covering national security.”   

However, a former Washington Post colleague of Nakashima said that, like many reporters who won Pulitzers for their Russiagate coverage, she was too reliant on anti-Trump sources and is “too invested” in the fast-unraveling story now to look back and reassess it with fresh eyes.    

Noting that Nakashima has not cleared up the record by identifying her sources in the intelligence community who fed her information that turned out to be wrong or misleading, the former senior Post reporter said Nakashima is protecting them, even as some of them fall under criminal investigation for their role in perpetuating a massive fraud against the president.   

“She’s running interference [for them], and worrying about her own reporting looking bad,” said the Post source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.   

Cozy Relationship

A similarly cozy relationship was forged between Michael Schmidt of the New York Times and Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, a close friend of Comey. After Trump fired Comey in 2017, the FBI documents note, “Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump,” which were classified.   

The newly released FBI memos reveal that Schmidt, who is married to anti-Trump MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, spent considerable time with Richman, who was later investigated for leaking classified material to Schmidt. Richman told the FBI he spoke to journalists “to correct stories critical of Comey, [and] the FBI and to shape future press coverage.” Richman told agents “he did not know who gave Schmidt the classified information,” but he was “pretty sure” it wasn’t him, before hedging that he was sure “with a discount.” He also claimed Comey “never asked” him to talk to the media.   

Like Nakashima, Schmidt credulously reported every angle of the Russiagate investigation despite the paucity of “collusion” evidence.   

One of those Times stories, “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election,” became the subject of a years-long leak investigation. The April 22, 2017, article gave a supposed insider account of how Comey handled the investigations of Clinton’s email scandal and Russiagate during the 2016 election. But it was clearly spun in Comey’s favor. “Partisanship was not a factor in Mr. Comey’s approach to the two investigations,” Schmidt wrote. “In the case of Mr. Trump, he conducted the investigation by the book.” In fact, two independent investigations found serious misconduct in both probes.   

FBI documents also reveal that former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page made three separate trips to the New York Times in 2017 before the Schmidt article was published – on March 10, March 30, and April 10 – to provide “investigator-level” briefings to Times editors and reporters – all concerning the same flattering story about Comey. They discussed classified information during the briefings, the documents say.   

Schmidt’s May 2017 article, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation,” helped pressure the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to take over the Russiagate case. Mueller focused on potential obstruction, but in the end found no evidence for obstruction or collusion.   

Nonetheless, Schmidt’s work was among the newspaper’s 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russiagate. The three-way friendship between Schmidt, his source, and the subject of his story was not disclosed to the Pulitzer board – or the Times readership. “Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times,” the FBI documents reveal.   

A New York Times spokeswoman, Danielle Rhoades-Ha, said that the stories using Richman as a source "raise no concerns about the accuracy of The Times’s reporting, which relied on multiple sources." Asked about the veracity of reporting about Comey allegedly conducting the Russiagate investigation "by the book," the Times did not respond.Richman was not charged with perjury or leaking classified information. Neither was Comey, although he is currently under investigation for possible false statements to Congress.   

Another Trump-Russia conspiracy reporter, Shane Harris, also allegedly received classified intelligence from Schiff’s committee when he worked for the Wall Street Journal.   

Whistleblower Allegations

The FBI whistleblower claimed that within 24 hours of Democratic House intelligence panel member Eric Swalwell receiving a CIA document, some of the information in it showed up “almost verbatim” in a July 1, 2017, article by Harris that referred to “Russian hackers.” Published under the headline, “GOP Activist Who Sought Clinton Emails Cited Trump Campaign Officials,” the story by Harris and several colleagues cited as sources, “U.S. officials with knowledge of the intelligence.”   

“[CIA] officials descended upon HPSCI’s offices, threatening to stop providing information unless the leaking ended,” recounted the FBI’s summary of the whistleblower interview.   

The committee whistleblower suspected Swalwell “played a role in the leak,” noting the California Democrat “previously had been warned to be careful because he had a reputation for leaking classified information.” An outspoken Trump critic, Swalwell has denied being the source of leaks.   

Shane Harris, who later jumped to the Washington Post before recently landing at The Atlantic, did not respond to requests for comment.   

FBI investigators wrote that the committee whistleblower “advised it is likely the leaks are being conducted through cutouts.” They added, “He believed some individuals may be using their spouse’s phones to contact the media” and “conceal” their leaks.   

One of these individuals was believed to be Schiff’s staff director, Michael Bahar, a Democrat and former Obama adviser who led the committee’s Russiagate investigation and became the FBI’s prime suspect in its leak investigation.    

During a February 2017 committee meeting, the whistleblower told FBI agents that Bahar “instructed the staff to collect information from the USIC [U.S. Intelligence Community] for purposes of making it public.”   

After Bahar left the committee in June 2017, the whistleblower alleged, he continued to leak information he received from a protege he placed on the panel to “relay” classified material. While the protege’s name is hidden under redactions, authorities confirmed the staffer is Thomas Eager.   

“[Eager] functioned as [Bahar’s] insider at the committee,” according to an FBI report, even though “committee rules prohibited communications with former staffers on official matters.”   

He [Eager] tells [Bahar] what he learned and [Bahar] takes it to the media,” the whistleblower alleged in an August 2017 FBI interview.   

No charges were filed against either Eager or Bahar, who did not reply to requests for comment.   

Ineffective Investigations

Declassified documents show that the FBI and DOJ launched no fewer than seven classified leak investigations that centered on 2017 reporting on the Russiagate investigation. They targeted several high-ranking Obama officials, two Democratic members of Congress – Schiff and Swalwell – and more than three dozen Hill staffers from both parties (including now-FBI Director Kash Patel, then a House intel lawyer for chairman Devin Nunes), along with numerous journalists who were on the receiving end of the leaks.   

None of the probes led to a single prosecution for espionage or mishandling secrets.   

Critics say the investigations – conducted under the leadership of Comey’s deputy Andrew McCabe, who was himself investigated by DOJ’s IG for leaking classified information to the media – were botched, likely on purpose. 

There hasn’t been nearly enough transparency on why those investigations didn’t result in any accountability for those responsible,” said Jason Foster, a former Republican staffer who served as chief investigative counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. Foster said DOJ subpoenaed his personal phone and email records while he worked on the Hill in 2017. 

Seizing the communications records of suspected leakers and journalists was crucial to identifying the sources of the leaks in the massive conspiracy against Trump. But in their search warrants, investigators failed to include among the records they sought the deleted texts from the encrypted Signal app used by reporters and leakers, which they could have obtained by seizing cell phones.   

And the telephone records they did obtain included only the phone numbers of the calls made to and from the targeted device over the specified time period, and the duration of the calls, but excluded what was texted in those phone calls. What’s more, the emails taken included just the metadata, not the content of the messages. The warrants covered only “non content communication records.”   

Also, “the government did not seek local and long-distance telephone records for the two members of Congress” – Schiff and Swalwell, according to a December 2024 review of the FBI’s investigative efforts by former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. “The compulsory process did not seek the content of any [of their] communications.”   

In the Nakashima probe, agents oddly limited their search of her phone records to the period from April 15, 2017, to July 31, 2017, which meant that any contacts with House or Senate intel leakers prior to her April 11, 2017, story on the Page FISA warrants would not have been discovered. More curious, investigators never obtained any records from her work email accounts, even though the court approved such searches.   

Agents also failed to obtain even the logs of the Google emails of Schmidt and three other New York Times reporters in their investigations of classified leaks to the Times in 2017, even though a judge authorized giving investigators access to the data.   

The IG report said allegations from the “committee witness” – believed to be Minehart – “were not ultimately substantiated.” However, agents failed to pursue the phone records for some of the spouses whose phones were used by staffers he accused of leaking. And they never sought any of the phone records for an additional staffer ID’d by Minehart.   

And while investigators focused on former Schiff staff director and general counsel Bahar as a prime leak suspect, they failed to obtain any of his emails while he served on the committee. The scope of their Google email search began after he left the House in June 2017.   

A Curious Claim

Declassified FBI memos suggest that the bureau’s investigation was blunted by an unnamed House Intelligence Committee lawyer who advanced the curious claim that both members and congressional aides had immunity from criminal prosecution under the Constitution’s “speech or debate clause.”  

The investigators’ deference to this novel notion apparently hampered the probe of Bahar, who visited the “read room” with the classified material in early 2017 and subsequently made contact by phone with Nakashima and other Post reporters who authored the articles that disclosed classified information, according to the IG report.   

“To avoid gathering information that would be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, the Google search warrant sought records beginning on the date the Senior Committee Staffer [Bahar] departed from government service,” the IG report said.   

Investigators also limited what Apple phone records of Bahar they could use as evidence by applying “filter procedures to review the contents of the search warrant returns to segregate Speech or Debate material and attorney-client privileged material,” the report said.   

In his report, then-DOJ IG Horowitz said that agents and prosecutors “ultimately determined that [Bahar] likely did not leak the classified information to the reporters and the investigation was closed without any charges being filed.”   The IG report said that the search warrant application for Bahar's records noted that the "Committee Witness" — Minehart — was of "unknown reliability."

FBI documents indicate the New York Times leak investigation was opened by Joseph Pientka, the supervisory special agent who initially ran the Russiagate probe against Trump out of bureau headquarters. And the leak probe was overseen by DOJ official David Laufman, the Obama appointee and Democratic Party campaign donor who charged several Trump advisers under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.   

Though the statute of limitations may be close to expiring, federal law enforcement sources say FBI Director Patel is considering reopening the leak investigations. The statutory clock for prosecuting the federal offense of disclosing classified information runs ten years. And there is no period of limitation for prosecuting espionage cases.   

The evidence gathered from the investigations has not been destroyed, according to the IG report. Digital copies of the communications records obtained are stored in the FBI’s case management system, known as Sentinel, and hard copies are retained in a locked filing cabinet.   

Media Collusion

Since Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard essentially reopened the Russiagate story by declassifying hundreds of pages of documents exposing how Obama administration intelligence was manufactured against Trump, the Washington Post and other major media have largely refused to report the story they once covered zealously.   

They’ve even blacked out the claims of a former top ODNI cyber-analyst who said he was “pressured” to change his assessments about Russian election influence to fit the anti-Trump narrative.  

The same media that breathlessly reported every unverified claim in the Steele dossier now demands ‘context’ and ‘corroboration’ when faced with damning primary documents,” said Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center in Washington. “This double standard – embracing unverified gossip when it suits their narrative but dismissing hard evidence when it doesn’t – reveals a media more interested in protecting Democratic allies than pursuing truth.”   

For her part, Nakashima has trained her investigative sights on Gabbard, who claims the Post reporter has been “stalking” and “harassing” her and her staff, while calling intelligence officials from a “burner phone” to disguise her identity while trying to entice them into sharing derogatory information about Gabbard.   

Some New York Times and Washington Post alumni who have won Pulitzers covering previous national security issues say they’re disappointed their former colleagues aren’t doing more to cover the declassification of Intelligence Community documents strongly suggesting the Trump-Russia “collusion” scandal was cooked up for political reasons.   

“The documents that came out in the past couple of months are jaw-dropping. It’s rare to see such slam-dunk evidence of a conspiracy,” said former Washington Post investigative reporter Susan Schmidt. “But the entire mainstream media have been operating from an anti-Trump agenda, and they are not reporting on the exposé of the hoax that’s coming out.”   

Former New York Times Pulitzer winner Jeff Gerth agreed: “The media aren’t looking for Russiagate [hoax] scoops, nor will they fairly present the ones others get if they reflect poorly on their prior reporting.”   

They’re in a defensive posture and aren’t inclined to report deeply on anything that helps Trump,” he explained.   

Tim Graham said the release of FBI leak records proves the real scandal was never Russia collusion but “media collusion” – the collaboration between legacy media journalists and federal government malcontents who shared a common goal of knee-capping Trump.   

Even though declassified documents expose their incestuous ties, Graham added, “these journalists still shamelessly pretend they didn’t collude with their fellow liberals at government agencies to undermine their domestic enemy Trump at every turn.”   

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 23:15

If Mental Health Experts Can't Identify Murderers, What's The Backup Plan?

If Mental Health Experts Can't Identify Murderers, What's The Backup Plan?

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. and Rep. Thomas Massie via RealClearPolitics,

A profound mental health crisis lies at the heart of violence in America. Decarlos Brown Jr., the man who brutally stabbed to death the Ukrainian woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, was in a mental hospital earlier this year, and diagnosed with schizophrenia. But doctors wouldn’t have released him if they had viewed him as a danger to himself or others.

Deadly stabbing on NC train Aug. 22, 2025 (WCNC:Charlotte Area Transit System per CNN Newsource)

Similarly, the killers at Minneapolis’ Annunciation Catholic School and Nashville’s Covenant School both struggled with mental illness. Nearly all mass shooters also battled suicidal thoughts.

We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health,” Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles warned after the stabbing death. “Mental health disease is just that – a disease. It needs to be treated with the same compassion.” After the Minneapolis attack, House Speaker Mike Johnson underscored the issue: “The problem is the human heart. It’s mental health. There are things that we can do.”

Yet, despite the fact that more than half of mass public shooters over the past 25 years were already under the care of mental health professionals, not a single one was identified as a danger to themselves or others. An entire body of academic research now explores why mental health experts so often fail to predict these attacks.

When professionals cannot identify threats before tragedy strikes, society must ask: What is the backup plan?

The Minneapolis school murderer admitted: “I am severely depressed and have been suicidal for years.” After the Nashville school shooting, police concluded the killer was “highly depressed and highly suicidal throughout her life.” Yet even with regular psychiatric care, experts found no signs of homicidal or suicidal intent.

The 2022 Buffalo supermarket killer showed the same pattern. In June 2021, when asked about his future plans, he answered that he wanted to attend summer school, murder people there, and then commit suicide. Alarmed, his teacher sent him for evaluation by two mental health professionals. He told them it was a joke, and they let him go. Later he admitted: “I got out of it because I stuck with the story that I was getting out of class and I just stupidly wrote that down. It was not a joke, I wrote that down because that’s what I was planning to do.”

Many well-known mass killers saw psychiatrists before their attacks. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was himself an Army psychiatrist. Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara) had received years of high-level counseling, but like the Buffalo killer, Rodger simply knew not to reveal his true intentions. The Army psychiatrist who last saw Ivan Lopez (the second Fort Hood shooter) concluded there was no “sign of likely violence, either to himself or to others.”

Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes’ psychiatrist did warn University of Colorado officials about Holmes’ violent fantasies shortly before his attack, but even she dismissed the threat as insufficient for custody. And both a court-appointed psychologist and a hospital psychiatrist found Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho posed no danger to himself or others.

Psychiatrists have every incentive to get these diagnoses right. Beyond professional pride and the desire to help, they face legal obligations to report threats. Families of victims have even sued psychiatrists for failing to recommend confinement. Despite this, psychiatrists consistently underestimate the danger.

The problem runs deep enough to generate a whole academic literature. Some experts suggest psychiatrists try to prove their fearlessness or become desensitized to risk. Additional training in unusual cases may help, but predicting such rare outcomes will always remain extremely difficult.

Hindsight makes the warning signs look obvious. Before the attack, even to experts, they rarely do. And while addressing mental illness, we should not stigmatize it. Mentally ill people are far more likely to become victims of violence than perpetrators. Only a tiny fraction ever commit murder.

Take schizophrenia: More than 3.5 million Americans live with the disorder, yet only one schizophrenic has committed a mass attack since 2019. That makes the odds of such a crime less than one in 3.5 million – extremely rare.

No one wants dangerous individuals to access weapons. Are we going to disarm all mentally ill people, even though they themselves are at increased risk of violent crime? One woman we know saw her husband murdered in front of her by her stalker. She was very depressed but feared that in seeking mental help she would be denied the right to own a gun (which she needed to protect herself).

Another factor that makes these attacks difficult to stop is that they are planned long in advance, with six months being about the shortest. The Sandy Hook massacre was planned for over two and a half years, allowing the perpetrator plenty of time to obtain weapons.

These killers, like the recent attacker in Minneapolis, often state outright in their manifestos and diaries that they target “gun-free zones.” They may be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. They expect to die, but they want attention when they do. They know that the higher the body count, the more media coverage they’ll receive. That’s why they choose places where no one can fight back.

The attack in Charlotte happened in a gun-free zone. The woman had no chance to defend herself when the attacker struck from behind, and no one on the train intervened. Bystanders may have hesitated out of fear – after all, the killer was a large man armed with a knife, even though knives are also banned on public transportation. If someone had carried a firearm, they could have stopped the assault, just as a Marine veteran in July did in a Michigan Walmart, where at gun point he forced a knife-wielding attacker to drop his weapon. Others who tried to stop the attacker without a gun were stabbed.

Our mental health system cannot serve as the last line of defense – too many mistakes slip through. If mental health professionals can’t reliably stop these attackers before they strike, we must ask: What’s the backup plan? Leaving targets unprotected isn’t the best option.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 22:35

US Army Places US Typhon Missiles In Japan For First Time, Enraging China

US Army Places US Typhon Missiles In Japan For First Time, Enraging China

The United States continues using regional Asian allies to counter-signal China and flex its military might, following President Xi Jinping's massive military parade marking the 80th anniversary of World War II, which gripped the world's attention two weeks ago.

This week the US Army has unveiled a midrange Typhon missile system on a Japanese base for the first time. The deployment comes in the context of the annual bilateral exercise Resolute Dragon; however, US officials have made clear the Typhon won't be fired, but is only there for training purposes.

Source: US Army, SCMP

We previewed earlier that the Typhon, also dubbed 'Mid-Range Capability', is a land-based missile launcher that can fire nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles, which have a range exceeding 1,000 miles, and SM-6 missiles, which can hit targets up to 290 miles away.

The missile system would have been banned under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a treaty with Russia that the US withdrew from in 2019. This has naturally caused immense alarm in Beijing, as has Washington's deepening military relationship with Japan.

According to the latest from The Hill on the new military exercises:

More than 19,000 U.S. and Japanese service members are participating in the exercise by rehearsing crisis response and contingency operations, with a focus on controlling and defending key maritime terrain, according to the U.S. Department of Defense

Delivered last month to the U.S. base in Iwakuni, the missile system is capable of firing the Standard Missile-6 and the Tomahawk cruise missiles. The missile showcase follows its deployment in the Philippines last year. Russia and China criticized the U.S., accusing the country of fueling an arms race.

Col. Wade Germann, commander of the task force that operates the missile system, said at a televised press briefing in Japan that "Integrating this system into Resolute Dragon affords us the opportunity to conduct tough and realistic training with our partners."

"Through employing multiple systems and different types of munitions, it is able to create dilemmas for the enemy," he added. Beijing can't help but assume it is the presumed "enemy" being talked about here.

On Tuesday, an alarmed and incensed Chinese Foreign Ministryurged the Typhon systems' immediately removal from Japan.

"The US and Japan need to earnestly respect other countries' security concerns and play a positive role for regional peace and stability with concrete actions, not the other way around," the statement from spokesman Lin Jian said.

Beijing further called on Washington and Tokyo to "heed the call from regional countries, correct the wrong move and pull out the system as soon as possible. Due to its history of militarist aggression, Japan's military and security moves always draw close attention from its Asian neighbors and the international community," according to Lin's words.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 22:10

Trump Admin Expands Targets Across Global Narco Networks 

Trump Admin Expands Targets Across Global Narco Networks 

President Trump's "America First" strategy - also described as "Hemispheric Defense" and alignes with the century-long Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s - has expanded through increased border security, elevated pressure on allies such as Canada and Mexico, punitive measures against adversaries including China, Venezuela, Colombia, and Afghanistan, and declaring fentanyl crisis as well as both a public health crisis and national security threat, while also expanding list of nations designated as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries. 

A White House statement to begin the week announced that the Trump administration invoked Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) to designate Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries.

Trump's new designation for the countries listed above provides the administration with additional leverage, including the ability to impose severe consequences on foreign assistance programs if those governments fail to meet counterdrug obligations.

In effect, the designation gives Trump another bold tool to bring into line countries it views as complicit in the global drug trade network with drugs that eventually end up on the streets of U.S. cities, which have fueled an overdose crisis killing more than 100,000 Americans annually.

"Transnational organized crime's trafficking of fentanyl and other deadly illicit drugs into the United States has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis in the United States that remains the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 44," the president wrote in the Presidential Determination.

He continued, "More than 40 percent of Americans know someone who has died from an opioid overdose, and in 2024 the United States averaged over 200 deaths daily due to illicit drugs.  This remains unacceptable, and my administration is deploying every aspect of American power and unprecedented resources to defeat this threat to our Nation." 

Key highlights from the Presidential Determination:

Major Drug Transit/Producing Countries

  • Identified under U.S. law: Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Venezuela.

  • Inclusion reflects geography/economics, enabling drug flows, not necessarily government cooperation or effort.

Countries Failing Demonstrably

  • Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Venezuela.

  • These failed to meet international obligations or U.S. standards for drug control.

  • U.S. assistance to Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, and Venezuela deemed vital to U.S. interests.

Regional Security Measures 

  • Border security tightened, overdose deaths reportedly declining.

  • Canada: PM Carney named a fentanyl czar, advanced inspection powers.

  • Mexico: Pres. Sheinbaum boosted cooperation, surged 10k National Guard to border, seized fentanyl/precursors, extradited 29 cartel leaders. U.S. expects sustained, deeper actions.

  • U.S. designated Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), unlocking sanctions, prosecutions, visa bans.

Country-By-Country Threat 

China (PRC)

  • Largest source of fentanyl precursors.

  • Punished with 20% tariffs and removal of de minimis duty-free imports.

  • U.S. demands stronger Chinese enforcement and prosecutions.

Colombia

  • Coca/cocaine production at record highs under Pres. Petro.

  • Failure attributed to political leadership's policies and weak eradication.

  • U.S. open to revising designation if actions improve.

Venezuela

  • Maduro regime labeled a global cocaine trafficking hub.

  • U.S. will continue efforts to prosecute Maduro/regime officials.

  • Tren de Aragua designated a terrorist threat.

Bolivia

  • Some cooperation, including seizures and prosecution of corrupt officials.

  • Still short of consistent counterdrug obligations.

Afghanistan

  • Taliban ban on drugs undermined by stockpiles and meth production.

  • Drug trade funding terrorists/criminal groups.

  • Designated as failing demonstrably again.

Back to our earlier notes from this year on Trump's hemispheric defense: the strategy extends beyond dismantling narcotics networks in the Americas and neutralizing command-and-control nodes of FTO-designated cartels (recall our reporting that SIGINT operations were laying the groundwork for this). The administration is also cleaning up financial institutions (recall TD Bank's AML violation), targeting cartel money as well as laundering networks operated by China and other adversaries. 

The kinetic side of hemispheric defense is playing out with the US Southern Command's military assets off the coast of Venezuela, targeting drug boats.

The Trump admin has a message for FTO drug cartels: "We Are Hunting You."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 21:45

CDC Advisers To Vote On 3 Vaccines: What To Know

CDC Advisers To Vote On 3 Vaccines: What To Know

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are scheduled to meet on Sept. 18 and Sept. 19 to consider changes to recommendations for three vaccines.

A health care worker prepares a measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine in Lubbock, Texas, on March 1, 2025. Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on Thursday is slated to hear presentations on the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine, as well as data on the hepatitis B vaccine, according to a draft agenda released by the panel.

The panel on Friday will focus on COVID-19 vaccines, after federal regulators narrowed clearance for those immunizations.

Advisers will vote near the end of each day on the three shots. The specifics on the votes have not been finalized, Martin Kulldorff, the chair of ACIP, told The Epoch Times in an email on Sept. 15.

Here’s what to know about the upcoming session.

MMRV Versus MMR

The MMRV vaccine targets four diseases. Children can receive the combination vaccine, or they can become immunized against the same four diseases by receiving the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and, separately, the vaccine against varicella, which is commonly known as chickenpox.

The CDC recommends children receive two doses against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella. The agency says on its website that either option is fine.

It does recommend that the first dose be the MMR vaccine for children aged 12 to 47 months, since the MMRV vaccine “is associated with a higher risk for fever and febrile seizures.” A febrile seizure is a single seizure that lasts 15 minutes or less. It also states, “MMRV may be used if parents or caregivers express a preference.”

Kulldorff said during the panel’s last meeting that the effectiveness of the different options is about the same, but that data indicate the MMRV vaccine causes more febrile seizures in young children.

A proposed recommendation ... could be, that as there exist[s] a safer, equally effective alternative, the MMRV vaccine should not be administered to children under the age of 47 months,” he said at the time.

The CDC, in a background paper in June, said that the primary concern for increased risk of fevers and febrile seizures is for children aged 12 to 23 months of age. It also said that the febrile seizures “resolve without long-term consequences,” although some data indicate that certain children may have an increased risk of problems such as epilepsy following a febrile seizure.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told The Epoch Times that he believes it is important for ACIP to discuss the relative risk of febrile seizure versus children not getting vaccinated.

ACIP carries out discussion and analysis between meetings through workgroups, or groups comprised of some members and other experts. Benjamin said that it has been difficult to get a read on the upcoming meeting after officials removed representatives from outside organizations from the workgroups over the summer.

I think everybody’s going to be listening very carefully about what’s presented, how it’s presented, and ... whether or not they follow the evidence,” he said.

Hepatitis B

ACIP will listen to presentations on how the hepatitis B vaccine is administered to many infants on their first day of life, as well as an update on the safety of the vaccine, according to the draft agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, declined to provide copies of the presentations.

Hepatitis B is a liver disease that can lead to serious complications. Since the 1990s, the CDC has recommended a multi-dose vaccine starting shortly after birth. Two additional doses are recommended before a child turns 2.

The schedule was put into place due to “the difficulty of vaccinating high-risk adults” with the aim of eliminating transmission of hepatitis B in children, according to the CDC. After the recommendations were put into place, there was a decline in hepatitis B among young children. The rate of the disease has remained low among children and young adults.

“It’s been an extraordinarily and brilliantly successful program,” Dr. William Schaffner, a former ACIP member who is currently an alternate liaison to the panel for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told The Epoch Times.

Some other experts, including the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, have questioned dosing children within hours of birth, noting that pregnant women can be tested for hepatitis B and that vaccine campaigns could target children born to women who were not tested, or who tested positive.

Unless the mother is hepatitis B positive, an argument could be made to delay the vaccine for this infection, which is primarily spread by sexual activity and intravenous drug use,” Kulldorff said at ACIP’s last meeting.

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who recently resigned from the CDC, predicted recently that ACIP would try to change the recommendation for the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.

COVID-19 Vaccines

CDC presenters on Friday are scheduled to tell panel members about updates to the epidemiology of COVID-19, the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, and the economics of vaccination, according to the draft agenda. Retsef Levi, a member and the new chair of the ACIP workgroup on COVID-19 vaccines, will then go over the proposed recommendation. A vote is scheduled to follow.

Federal officials cleared COVID-19 vaccines on an emergency basis in late 2020 and recommended them to many Americans. That later developed into a system that mimicked the model for influenza vaccines, with an annual strain update to target circulating variants and advice that people receive an annual shot.

New leaders said that they did not support that system, in part because the clinical trials on which the repeated updates were based date back years. The CDC over the summer, under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, stopped recommending COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women. In August, the FDA narrowed clearance to people aged 65 and older, and younger people who have at least one risk factor, such as obesity.

ACIP members could vote for recommendations that are more expansive than the FDA clearance, Benjamin said. They could also support recommending the vaccines for smaller populations than the clearance.

Levi previously called for removing two of the three COVID-19 vaccines from the market, while Dr. Robert Malone, another member, has said that data indicate the vaccines “are not effective or are at very low effectiveness and are contributing to negative effectiveness.” Several people named to the panel on Monday have also been critical of the vaccines.

ACIP typically offers recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines before the FDA acts, but did not do so this year.

In certain states, pharmacists cannot administer vaccines without ACIP recommendations. Some states changed their rules to make sure people have access to the vaccines. Some organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have recommended vaccination for many younger people.

What Happens After the Votes?

ACIP is an advisory body. Its recommendations are sent to the CDC.

Earlier in 2025, when the CDC did not have a director in place, Kennedy signed off on ACIP recommendations.

Susan Monarez, who was confirmed in July as the CDC’s director, approved an ACIP recommendation several days later. President Donald Trump fired Monarez in August after officials said she was not aligned with the Trump administration’s agenda.

Monarez has said she was asked to preapprove ACIP’s recommendations, a charge Kennedy denied.

Following the ouster, Trump chose Deputy Health Secretary Jim O'Neill to serve as the CDC’s acting director.

O'Neill is authorized to approve recommendations from ACIP, a spokesperson for HHS told The Epoch Times in an email on Sept. 15.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 20:55

Nvidia's New RTX6000 AI Chip Met With Dismal Demand From Chinese Firms

Nvidia's New RTX6000 AI Chip Met With Dismal Demand From Chinese Firms

Nvidia’s RTX6000D, its newest artificial intelligence chip tailored for the Chinese market, has seen lukewarm demand with some major tech firms going so far as not placing any orders, the SCMP reported citing sources. 

The reason for the snub: the RTX6000D, designed mainly for AI inference tasks, is seen as expensive for what it does (just wait until the rest of Nvidia's produce lineup gets the same treatment when China reverse engineers its products and sells them for 90% off). They added that testing of samples showed its performance lags the RTX5090 – a chip banned by the US government for use in mainland China, but which is still readily available through grey market channels at less than half the RTX6000D’s price of around 50,000 yuan (US$7,000).

Chinese technology giants - including Alibaba, Tencent and ByteDance - are also waiting for clarity on whether orders for Nvidia’s H20 chip will be processed, separate sources said earlier this month. The US firm regained permission to sell the H20 in July, but shipments have yet to restart.

Chinese firms are also hoping that Nvidia’s B30A, a much more powerful graphics processing unit (GPU) than the H20, will be approved by Washington.

Those three chips are downgraded versions of GPUs sold outside China, developed to comply with export restrictions put in place by the US, which wants to rein the mainland’s tech progress and retain its lead in AI development.

The muted demand for the RTX6000D contrasts with optimistic projections from sell-side analysts. JPMorgan said in a report last month that it expected some 1.5 million RTX6000Ds to be produced in the second half of this year, while Morgan Stanley predicted in July that Nvidia would have 2 million RTX6000Ds in its pipeline. 

Nvidia began shipping the RTX6000D this week, according to one of the sources. 

The RTX6000D is based on Nvidia’s latest Blackwell architecture with conventional graphics double data rate memory and a memory bandwidth of 1,398 gigabytes per second, just below the 1.4 terabyte threshold set under restrictions laid out by the US in April. It was developed in part to fill a void left by the H20, which was banned from sale in April before that decision was reversed.

The H20, which is priced between US$10,000 and US$12,000, uses older Hopper architecture but has a greater memory bandwidth of 4TBs per second. Shipments of the H20, however, have not started for several reasons, including Nvidia’s need to sort out some issues related to a recent deal to give the US government a portion of its China sales.

In unrelated news, on Monday Beijing accused Nvidia of violating China’s anti-monopoly law, casting more uncertainty on its business in the world’s second-biggest economy. The move came as delegations from both sides are meeting in Madrid this week to discuss a trade agreement.

Chinese authorities have also summoned companies, including Tencent and ByteDance, over their purchases of the H20, asking them to explain their reasons and expressing concerns over information risks, sources have said. Nvidia has said its products do not pose any back door risks that would give anyone a remote way to access or control them.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 19:40

Damning Report Card: California Schools Get An 'F'

Damning Report Card: California Schools Get An 'F'

Via TheCenterSquare,

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Free Speech Rankings crowned California's Claremont McKenna College with a grade of B- as the best college in the U.S. for free speech, while a string of other California schools received F grades amid anti-free speech environments across campuses.

The Kravis Center stands at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. The college got the best score in the nation in a foundation report on free speech at campuses: a B-.

FIRE released its sixth annual College Free Speech Rankings, which pulled responses on free-speech topics from 68,510 students attending 257 American colleges. The survey highlighted a decline in support for free speech among all students. 

Students on both sides of the political aisle are showing a deep “unwillingness” to face controversial ideas, the press releases stated. 

“This year, students largely opposed allowing any controversial campus speaker, no matter that speaker's politics,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Rather than hearing out and then responding to an ideological opponent, both liberal and conservative college students are retreating from the encounter entirely … We must champion free speech on campus as a remedy to our culture's deep polarization.”

According to the FIRE survey, Claremont McKenna College is ranked in the top 10 best schools for free speech on  “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” “Openness” and “Self-Censorship,” among other categories. 

Shortly after the horrific assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk at a Utah college campus event, Claremont Independent, the college newspaper, wrote a story on how CMC students reacted to the killing of Kirk.

“Even those who despise Kirk and everything he stood for should mourn the damage his assassination will do to America’s fragile architecture of free speech and civil discourse. There can be no picking and choosing in the world of free expression. It’s free speech for all, or free speech for none,” the editorial board wrote.

Out of the 257 schools surveyed, 166 of them received an F for their free speech climate. Only 10 schools received a free speech grade of C. Claremont McKenna was the only college to get a better grade than a C.

Stanford University and Chapman University ranked 75 and 97 and received a D- grade and an F, respectively. Other colleges such as University of California, Los Angeles; UC San Francisco; UC Davis; Pomona College;  UC Santa Barbara; and California State University, Fresno all received an F grade for their free speech environments. 

UC Berkeley, which was known for its free speech movement in 1964-65, also got an F on free speech.

Schools are not meeting the bare minimum for neutral stances on political controversies, Sean Stevens, chief research adviser for FIRE, told The Center Square.  

The survey also noted that, nationally, 71% of students believe it is acceptable to shout down a speaker, and 53% believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is too sensitive to discuss.  

“Those students who are the furthest to the left have been the most accepting of violence for as long as we’ve asked the question,” Stevens told The Center Square. “But a rising tide of acceptance of violence has raised all boats. Now, regardless of party or ideology, students across the board are more open to violence as a way to shut down a speaker.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 19:15

How The Left Programmed Young People To Hate

How The Left Programmed Young People To Hate

Authored by David Betz and Michael Rainsborough via The Daily Sceptic,

In the spring of 1975, the Red Army Faction, more popularly known as the Baader-Meinhof gang, stormed the West German Embassy in Stockholm and murdered two of its staff before setting the building ablaze. In its aftermath, a British tabloid printed a headline whose bluntness masked its profundity: ‘So, Who’s Sick?

It was less a headline than a rhetorical diagnosis, reflecting the bewilderment at these seemingly senseless acts of terror. Was it the bourgeois world condemned as corrupt by these self-styled revolutionaries, or was it the revolutionaries themselves, who in their righteous fervour appeared possessed by demons?

The question was never one that admitted an easy answer in that moment, and it remains just as piercing in ours. For when, half a century later, Charlie Kirk was struck down in the midst of civic debate, and when voices on the ‘progressive’ Left respond not with horror but with unholy glee, we are forced once again to confront the same ambiguity.

Who is diseased? Who is truly sick? The question still hangs in the air, accusing its audience as much as its subjects.

The Eclipse of Compassion

The murder of Charlie Kirk was barbarous enough, but what followed was more chilling still. Social media, that great theatre of contemporary sentiment, resounded with elation rather than grief. Where the natural response should have been mourning and sober reflection, there was instead celebration, applause, even exultation. The old pieties of compassion and human dignity were trampled beneath a chorus of malevolence.

If we return to 1975, we can discern that the spectacle is hardly without precedent. The chronicler of the Red Army Faction’s rise and fall, Stefan Aust, described the psychosis that fuelled its violence as the Baader-Meinhof Complex: a toxic brew of revolutionary ideology, middle-class angst and personality cultism, in which politics fused with pathology. Terror and bloodshed were the logical expression of this worldview.

Jillian Becker, in her study of the same phenomenon published in 1977, placed the emergence of the Baader-Meinhof gang within an extended historical frame, tracing how West Germany’s post-war radicals were the children of those who had lived through the Third Reich — parents whose relationship with Nazism was often ambivalent, sometimes unrepentant. Their children judged them guilty of complicity or cowardice. In turn, they felt they had no tradition to receive let alone uphold, no cultural authority to embrace as their own. Becker memorably described them as Hitler’s Children, who expressed their alienation in violence against the very society that had given them life and often prosperity.

The parallels with today are clear. The obnoxious, jeering, bratty mobs on social media and their elevation of spite into virtue: these too are not simply political stances but symptoms of generational breakdown. Becker’s ‘lost children’ of post-war Germany were orphaned by the silence and ambiguities of their parents’ Nazi past. Today’s youth, though shaped by different conditions, are estranged in an analogous way — heirs to a liberal order that preached emancipation but delivered only deracination.

Children of the Void

Becker’s account of Germany’s post-war radicals was of a generation forsaken by history — children who, faced with no inheritance they could accept without shame, turned their fury against the civilisation that had produced them. That revolt finds its echo 50 years later.

The YouTube channel Richard The Fourth, one of the few voices to offer measured and calm reflections on our troubled times, spoke in similar terms of those TikTokkers, X users and BlueSkyers who rejoiced in Charlie Kirk’s murder. “Who are these lost souls? Where did they come from?” he asked. They were, he suggested, “the lost children of the boomer generation”, alienated by the failures of a secular progressivism that promised transcendence through empathy and emancipation from tradition, but in the end gifted them only spiritual vacuity.

These people are not monsters by nature; they are the offspring of a culture that extolled compassion while detaching it from justice, that proclaimed liberation even as it erased the sources of meaning. The progeny of flower power have become the children of a void, and in that void, savagery takes root.

The historical parallels, then as now, are evident: youth cut adrift from their cultural moorings find themselves drawn less to renewal than to destruction. Then as now, dislocation breeds violence and scorn rather than reflection. Becker’s Hitler’s Children and Richard’s “lost souls” are separated by time and circumstance yet bound together by the same pattern: a society that cannot pass down its traditions to its successors is liable to be repudiated by them.

If Aust diagnosed the Baader-Meinhof Complex and Becker revealed the deeper dereliction that sustained it, Richard The Fourth’s reflections illuminate the pathology of our own time. The cheering at murder and the inversion of empathy into its opposite are the symptoms of a Liberal Nihilism Complex: a syndrome in which the promises of modernity collapse into petulance and hostility, leaving only a cohort of ‘feral goblins’, mocking and howling into the abyss.

Creating the Land of Hatred

Contemporary academics, especially in the social sciences, have little of real value to offer humanity, but the few decent ones — those who write for this outlet, of course — still have the capacity to bring depth and perspective to some of our present predicaments.

We are neither spiritualists nor psychologists and cannot claim to have a greater window into the minds of these lost souls than anyone else. What we can offer, though, is decades of engagement with the study of strategic conduct: the motives and means of those who resort to violence in pursuit of political ends. And it is here that we wish to advance a thesis that goes further than viewing the collapse of empathy as an unfortunate by-product of social confusion.

What we are witnessing is not a mishap. Whatever the spiritual degradation and cultural dispossession of these young minds, they are, nevertheless, instruments of history. The way they have been psychologically programmed is no quirk of fate; it has been done with intent. They have been conditioned for a purpose.

To explain this means walking backward into history. We could begin with the French Revolution, but for simplicity’s sake let us start a decade before 1975; in 1966, when Mao Zedong unleashed the Cultural Revolution in China, mobilising youth against their elders, students against teachers, children against parents. He did not stumble into chaos; he conjured it — because chaos was useful.

In Wild Swans, Jung Chang’s memoir of her family’s turmoil during the Cultural Revolution, she recounts that Mao ruled by getting people to despise one another. He understood the ugliest human instincts — envy and resentment — and knew how to weaponise them. “By nourishing the worst in people, Mao created a moral wasteland, a land of hatred.”

What Jung Chang described was not an incidental consequence of revolutionary excess but the very heart of its method: hatred deliberately sown, division systematically engineered, cruelty unleashed as a political instrument.

The lesson travelled westward. French intellectuals, jaded by the ossified torpor of Soviet communism, visited China and found in Mao’s carnival of destruction a perverse vitality. They imported his ideas, transmuting them into the currency of post-structuralist thought, which in turn shaped the practice of the Baader-Meinhof gang and others like them. From there it was but a short step to their entrenchment on Anglo-American campuses.

In the United States, groups that emerged from 1960s student radicalism, such as the Weather Underground, adopted similar tactics. Their manifesto, Prairie Fire (1974), named after Mao’s dictum that a single spark can ignite a conflagration, urged radicals to exploit racial and class divisions precisely because such divisions could be rendered unbridgeable.

Prairie Fire, which is still an influential text on the American radical Left, is a handbook for permanent confrontation. Its pages bristle with the conviction that America’s prosperity, its institutions, its constitutional liberties are all obstacles to be torn down. It demanded escalation over reconciliation — more division, deeper fractures, sharper antagonisms. For its authors, harmony was stasis, and stasis was defeat. Hatred was no passing symptom; it was the weapon itself.

This was not a politics of justice but of immolation. Harmony was the enemy; hatred the accelerant.

The Long March into the Academy

The campaigns of violence waged by groups such as the Weather Underground and the Baader-Meinhof gang were eventually broken. In the latter’s case, their downfall was signalled by the successful storming of a hijacked Lufthansa jet in Mogadishu in October 1977 by German GSG9 Special Forces, assisted by the SAS, which led to the suicide of the first generation of leaders in Stammheim Prison. After these reversals, many radicals withdrew to safer ground: the universities. There, sheltered by tenure and steeped in jargon, they recast their struggle into something less visible but more enduring.

What could no longer be pursued through bombs and bullets was now carried forward in the idiom of theory. Critical theory, post-colonialism, gender studies — all served the same end. Established systems of knowledge and reasoning were methodically dismantled, and in their stead rose the new orthodoxy of ‘social justice’. In this dispensation, social justice meant rancour without limit. The effort of the intellect was no longer a quest for truth. Instead, it was to be redirected into the calculated manufacture of animosity.

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe set out this programme with striking clarity in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985). Their project was never the reconciliation of differences. It was, rather, in their words, “to extend social conflictuality to a wide range of areas” in order to generate “new antagonisms”, arising out of “highly diverse struggles: urban, ecological, anti-authoritarian, anti-institutional, feminist, anti-racist, ethnic, regional, or that of sexual minorities”. The aim was less to close fissures in the body politic than to ensure they remained open wounds. The scholarly mind was recast: no longer to think and analyse, let alone to seek concord, but to irritate and inflame.

What they offered was more than theory; it was revolutionary strategy re-clothed in academic garb. Laclau and Mouffe made plain that the task of progressive politics was to create new fronts of enmity, new identities defined not by their substance but by their opposition — a creed of victims and oppressors, endlessly proliferating, endlessly unreconciled. In their schema, the intention was never to knit society together into an equilibrium, only to drive it into perpetual dissonance.

Nor was this movement hidden, or without its early critics. Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind (1987) saw where it was all leading. He warned that the university was ceasing to be the guardian of truth and culture. Instead, relativism was being allowed to erode tradition, while grievance displaced learning. He foresaw the battlelines forming long before the wider culture wars broke out.

In the decades that followed, the academy was unmade: from bastions of learning into factories of disaffection. The lecture hall, once devoted to dispassionate inquiry, became a place where conflict and division were intentionally stirred.

Engineering Discord

The end of the Cold War gave the enterprise added impetus. With the supposed ‘end of history’, liberal triumphalism licensed universities and institutions to reinvent themselves as moral tribunals. Politics was recast as ethics, and ethics as indictment.

‘Diversity’, ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’ became less articles of faith than a set of tactics — no longer instruments of compromise but of humiliation, tools by which resentment was stoked and sustained. Generations of students have since been trained to denounce rather than to reason, to persecute rather than to persuade. This is Mao’s Red Guards reconstituted for a digital age: armies of accusation, armed less with AK-47s than with hashtags and HR manuals.

Those who dismiss the ‘culture wars’ as a distraction misunderstand the nature of conflict in our time. The sociologist James Davison Hunter, who coined the phrase three decades ago, cautioned that when disputes cease to be arguments within a shared reality and instead become clashes over what reality itself is, rapprochement is no longer possible. At that point, the logic of civic debate and constitutional politics gives way to the logic of force.

To see all this as a tragic misfortune is deeply mistaken. What has emerged is not spontaneous disorder but a carefully tended culture of antipathy — fertilised by theory, irrigated by resentful passions and sustained by bureaucracies whose survival depends on perpetual conflict.

The Fruits of Permanent War

The harvest is plain to see — in the mayhem and murder on a Utah campus, in the digital mobs that revel and rage across social media, and in a public discourse poisoned by denunciation, where opponents are cast as existential threats — Nazis, fascists, and every other heresy of the age — solely for the crime of disagreement. In such a climate, the very possibility of civil discourse dissolves, leaving only the grammar of hatred.

It is the very condition Jung Chang described: a polity increasingly characterised by malice, nurturing the worst in its citizens, sustained by leaders who profit from fracture.

To reiterate, this is not collateral damage. It is the design. A fractured society is a pliable society. The more its members despise one another, the easier it is for elites to consolidate power under the guise of adjudicating conflicting rights-claims. A peaceful society cannot be radicalised. A society at war with itself can be subverted from within.

Here we confront the image of our times: young people clapping bloodshed, institutions that tremble before mobs, elites that fan flames for advantage. This is no vision of reform. No accommodation of political differences. It is the shadow of perpetual strife — the deliberate cultivation of a land of hatred.

The Terminal Condition

Thus, the question of 1975 — “Who’s sick?” — has found its answer. It is no longer only the young who jeer at murder, though they remain responsible for their choices. Yet their conduct reflects more than personal failing. It is the outcome of a society that abandoned its traditions, hollowed out its own authority and left its youth open to manipulation by those who profit from discord. Individuals may bear the guilt, but the culture that fashioned them must also stand condemned.

The signs of decay are no longer hidden. It is the parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes: the pretense sustained only so long as no one dares to speak what all can see. What we are living through is an epidemic of noticing — a slow, reluctant recognition that the social fabric is threadbare and that the fractures are premeditated, not incidental.

David Horowitz, who as editor of the radical 1960s periodical Ramparts once marched in the ranks of the radical Left before renouncing it, understood these dynamics better than most. He argued that the upheavals of the era were not motivated by the “longing for justice”. It was “not a quest for peace but a call to arms. It is war that feeds the true radical passions, which are not altruism or love, but nihilism and hate.” The reality of their political programme, he lamented, “entails only permanent war, that observes no truth and respects no law, and whose aim is to destroy the only world we know”.

*  *  *

David Betz is Professor of War in the Modern World, King’s College London. Michael Rainsborough is a former Head of the Department of War Studies, King’s College London.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 16:20

U.S. Reportedly Weighing $5 Billion Rare Earth Investment Fund, Sending Miners Soaring

U.S. Reportedly Weighing $5 Billion Rare Earth Investment Fund, Sending Miners Soaring

The US is weighing the creation of a $5 billion mining investment fund, which would mark its largest step yet into direct dealmaking to secure critical minerals, according to a Bloomberg report out this morning.

As a result, shares of rare earth companies MP Materials and USAR are both surging higher on the news...

Ironically, the amount proposed is about half of what we suggested earlier this summer...

Bloomberg writes that the US International Development Finance Corp. (DFC) is in talks with New York–based Orion Resource Partners to form a joint venture, though terms are still under negotiation and no deal is certain.

The proposed structure would see both parties contribute equally, scaling toward a combined $5 billion—similar to Orion’s $1.2 billion partnership with Abu Dhabi’s ADQ earlier this year.

Orion, which manages about $8 billion across mining-focused private equity, credit, and trading, has argued governments must play a bigger role in critical minerals markets, echoing China’s strategy of building stockpiles.

The initiative reflects rising concern over mineral supply chains. China dominates processing of metals such as copper, cobalt, and rare earths while its companies expand aggressively abroad. Longer-term forecasts point to shortages driven by weak investment, declining ore grades, and slow permitting.

The DFC, created late in Trump’s first term, has already backed mining ventures from Mozambique to central Africa, including a $150 million loan to Syrah Resources (a Tesla supplier) and $550 million for rail upgrades on the Lobito Corridor. A $2.5 billion commitment to Orion would be the agency’s biggest to date.

MP Materials' stock surge since the beginning of this year has been dramatic.

On the day the Pentagon’s investment was announced, MP shares surged more than 50% as investors priced in the guaranteed revenue and government backing. In the days that followed, the stock rallied further after Apple revealed a $500 million supply deal with MP, ultimately pushing the company’s year-to-date gains to well over 200–250% by mid-July.

In the last 12 months, shares are now up more than 370%. 

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 15:50

Goldman Spots "Strong Demand" For iPhone 17 In New Lead Time Data 

Goldman Spots "Strong Demand" For iPhone 17 In New Lead Time Data 

Apple hosted its "Awe Dropping" product launch event one week ago, unveiling the iPhone 17 lineup alongside updates for the Apple Watch and AirPods. Aside from more megapixels and incremental improvements to processing, display, and other features, the iPhone 16 remains sufficient and does not warrant an immediate upgrade. Still, the decision to upgrade weighs heavily on many consumers trapped in Tim Cook's Apple ecosystem hole. To gauge initial demand signals, we turn to new lead-time data from Goldman Sachs. 

A team of Goldman analysts, led by Michael Ng, provided clients with new lead-time data on iPhone 17 models just days after the product launch, highlighting what they describe as "strong iPhone 17 demand signals from pre-order trends."

Across the board, Ng's team found that pre-order lead times for iPhone 17 models are longer than the iPhone 16 launch in all regions (USA, Mainland China, Japan, UK, India, and Hong Kong), supporting their view of "outlook for +8% iPhone revenue growth in F4Q25, which should also benefit from some channel fill as AAPL ended F3Q25 at the low end of its channel inventory target range." 

Key Findings:

  • Lead times are extended for all iPhone 17 models globally versus iPhone 16.

  • Pro and Pro Max models show the longest wait times, maintaining their premium demand profile.

  • Mainland China has the longest delays (up to 5 weeks), though the iPhone Air launch is delayed there due to eSIM regulatory hurdles.

In-depth findings that support robust demand for the latest iteration of the iPhone:

  • iPhone 17 lead times are up across all models on Day 1 pre-orders on Apple.com. By model, the global lead times were 8 days longer for the base iPhone 17 model relative to the iPhone 16 base, 3 days longer for the iPhone Air relative to the iPhone 16 Plus, 3 days longer for the iPhone 17 Pro v. iPhone 16 Pro, and 8 days longer for the iPhone 17 Pro Max v. the iPhone 16 Pro Max. Lead times also remain elevated on day 4 of pre-orders (Monday, September 15). For our global analysis across regions, we assume the following regional weights on regions where we tracked lead times: USA (51%), Mainland China (27%), Japan (9%), UK (6%), India (6%), and Hong Kong (1%). These assumptions are consistent with the proportional distribution of Gartner's 2024 estimates of iPhone shipments by region.

  • Lead times are also up across most regions. By region, average lead times in the USA were 3 days longer across all models for Day 1 pre-orders on Apple.com. Specifically, lead times for iPhone Air were 4 days (v. no lead time for the iPhone 16 Plus) and 24 days for the iPhone 17 Pro Max (v. 17 days for the iPhone 16 Pro Max); lead times for the iPhone 17 Base and Pro in the USA remained at 0 days. Day 1 lead times were also up in Mainland China (+17 days to 27 days), the UK (+8 days to 18 days), India (+3 days to 13 days), and Hong Kong (+1 day to 13 days). In Japan, lead times moderated relative to the iPhone 16 with 23 day lead times on average (v. 29 days prior). For our analysis across iPhone model types, we assume the following unit mix: iPhone (23%), iPhone Plus/Air (8%), iPhone Pro (33%), and iPhone Pro Max (36%). The assumptions are in-line with Canalys' reported mix of iPhone 16 units by model life-to-date as of 4Q24.

  • Press reports that planned production for Base, Pro, and Pro Max models is up +25% yoy, iPhone Air up 3x as compared to the iPhone 16 Plus, per technology analyst Ming Chi Kuo. Longer lead times against a backdrop of longer lead times suggests stronger pre-order demand across these models.

  • iPhone Air launch delayed in China over eSIM regulation. There is minimal eSIM carrier support in China today, though Apple noted publicly that is it working with regulators to bring iPhone Air to China as soon as possible. Beyond the iPhone Air, eSIM-only iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max are available in Bahrain, Canada, Guam, Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the USA, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. eSIM-only models have larger batteries than those with a physical eSIM card slot.

Lead times by model:

  • iPhone 17 (starting at $799 with 256 GB storage): Available ~3 weeks after September 19th launch in the US across all colors expect Mist Blue which is available in ~2 weeks. Lead times in India were ~1 week, UK was ~2 weeks, Hong Kong was ~3 weeks, Japan was ~4 weeks, and Mainland China was ~5 weeks.

  • iPhone Air (starting at $999 with 256 GB storage): Available ~1 week after September 19th launch in the US, UK, and India, with ~2 week lead times in Japan. The launch of the iPhone Air is delayed in Mainland China due to eSIM regulation.

  • iPhone 17 Pro (starting at $1,099 with 256 GB storage): ~2 week lead times in the US and India, ~3 weeks in UK and Japan, and ~5 weeks in Mainland China. By color, Cosmic Orange & Silver have the longest lead times (~3 weeks), followed by Deep Blue (~2 weeks).

  • iPhone 17 Pro Max (starting at $1,199 with 256 GB storage): ~4 week lead times across all regions and colors except Hong Kong & India, where lead times are closer to ~3 weeks. By color, Cosmic Orange & Silver have the longest lead times (~4 weeks), followed by Deep Blue (~3 weeks).

Chart of The Day 

The analysts maintain a "Buy" rating on Apple with a 12-month price target of $266.

$250 Resistance. 

Moar buybacks Mr. Cook? 

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 14:05

Trump Supports Designating Antifa A Terrorist Organization

Trump Supports Designating Antifa A Terrorist Organization

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Monday said that he would support designating the antifa movement a terrorist organization in the wake of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.

In response to a question in a White House news conference, Trump was asked about the assassination and whether he would designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.

“It’s something I would do, yeah, if I have support from the people back here,” Trump said, referring to administration officials standing behind him, including Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“I would do that 100 percent,” he said, adding that “antifa is terrible.”

“There are some other groups” who are “pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder,”  Trump said.

He did not provide any specific details about those organizations.

The president said he would also bring RICO, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, charges against “some of the people you have been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation.”

Antifa supporters generally hold extreme political views, including communist or anarchist beliefs. Supporters, who are usually organized through decentralized cells, often favor “direct action” rather than electoral politics or policy reform.

A commonly used tactic involves participants wearing black clothing and masks during protests to shield their identifying features. In many cases, antifa participants engage in violence during demonstrations, such as during the unrest that occurred throughout the summer of 2020 in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

The suspect in Kirk’s assassination, Tyler Robinson, is believed to have held leftist viewpoints, say FBI Director Kash Patel and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. He also engraved anti-fascist messages on bullets that were recovered by officials.

Officials have not said whether Robinson was in communication or was associated with any particular antifa groups. The FBI is currently scrutinizing online accounts that are alleged to have shown awareness of Kirk’s assassination before the incident unfolded, a source familiar with the FBI’s investigation confirmed to The Epoch Times on Monday.

Screenshots highlighted by the Washington Free Beacon show several X accounts mentioning the date of Kirk’s assassination, which occurred Sept. 10, and ominous messages. The Epoch Times has not independently examined the screenshots and accounts that were singled out by the Free Beacon.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino told Fox News that the bureau is currently investigating whether Robinson had other accomplices. So far, no other individuals have been charged in the case.

Earlier Monday, both White House adviser Stephen Miller and Vice President JD Vance said that the administration is moving to investigate networks that organized riots, street violence, and other activities in the United States. At one point, Miller used the term “domestic terror movement” to describe such actors.

It’s not clear if Robinson has an attorney. His court arraignment date has been set for Tuesday.

Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10 while he was holding a debate forum at Utah Valley University with his Turning Point USA organization. The suspect was captured around 33 hours later, the FBI has said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/16/2025 - 13:45

Pages