Zero Rss

Trump Shoots Down Federal AI Regulations, Floats Watchdog 'Committee' And Self-Policing

Update (1650ET): So after today's big White House meeting with tech leaders, President Trump announced that they had signed a "morally binding" (lol) document governing the development of artificial intelligence. 

Following the luncheon, Trump told reporters that he's "seeing tremendous self-policing," and that the administration is looking to assemble a 10-person committee tasked with overseeing the AI industry. 

"There’s a belief that there should be tremendous self-regulation, and we automatically have regulation with the Department of Justice, the FBI, all of that, but the self-regulation is very important," he said. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson said everyone agreed the 'morally binding' malarkey is "voluntary on behalf of the industry," and that the White House will guide industry development - but not federally control anything. 

BREAKING: Elon Musk joins tech leaders outside the White House as Speaker Mike Johnson addresses the media following President Trump’s Super Intelligence luncheon. pic.twitter.com/6oQsWePQJl

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) September 29, 2026

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had more to say about self-policing.

WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg outlines the AI framework tech leaders agreed to after meeting with President Trump at the White House.

The Meta CEO says the principles center on robust internal controls, internal risk reviews, outside auditors and evaluators, and independent reviews of… pic.twitter.com/mQmE5822FG

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 29, 2026

Doomer Dario was dooming around, but did say 'we all need to work together' instead of 'regulatory capture me, daddy.'

JUST IN: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei highlights the "incredible benefits" and "very real risks" of artificial intelligence following a White House meeting with President Trump and top tech leaders.

"What I've always said, which is that AI has incredible benefits. I've talked… pic.twitter.com/wGrFskIugR

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 29, 2026

Elon Musk spoke of an age of abundance...

🚨 NOW: Hilarious moment as Donald Trump thanks Elon Musk immediately fixing himself calling SI "AI" on accident 🤣

ELON: "It is worth highlighting the positive benefits of AI....SI! Pardon me."

TRUMP: "Thank you!" *Slaps him on the arm*

ELON: "SUPER intelligence."

🔥🔥🔥… pic.twitter.com/UN2Bylz2Cz

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 29, 2026

Oh, and you can put the pitchforks down apparently! Give this a listen:

Tech leaders gathered at the White House for an AI luncheon hosted by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

President Trump said the tech executives are going to work with local communities on data centers.

“Data centers are going to be very popular,” the… pic.twitter.com/OIgl3JbKUH

— CNBC (@CNBC) September 29, 2026

Oh, and AI is now called "Super Intelligence."

BREAKING: President Trump says that he and tech leaders have officially changed the name of AI to 'Super Intelligence.' pic.twitter.com/MkuWluXqEu

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 29, 2026

* * *

Update (1010ET): Another day, another doom headline involving frontier AI labs. Yesterday, OpenAI announced that they would be scrapping the planned release of its next-gen AI model because of "deceptive" behavior. Today, we find out from a leaked prospectus ahead of Anthropic's $2T IPO that AI could pose "catastrophic or existential risks to humanity." 

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei

"Our development of highly advanced models, platforms, and applications and expansion of use cases could further ⁠increase the risk that our models cause harm," the Claude chatbot developer reportedly said, adding that a model becoming self-aware would create a "significant limitation" on the company's ability to assess model safety. 

The company, which has positioned itself as a safety-first ​AI lab, devoted roughly 80 pages of the 261-page main body of its prospectus to laying out risk factors, nearly twice the 48 pages it used to describe its business. -Reuters

The company warned of our impending doom in their prospectus, which was leaked to Reuters and FT. Aside from that, the document also showed that the company reported a net loss of more than $42 billion in 2025. 

Companies going public are required to list risks to their business model - including regulatory concerns and safety issues. A warning about their product causing human extinction is a new one. 

* * *

Days after we detailed the unprecedented freezing of OpenAI's top models following a disastrous breach where autonomous AI agents leaked user images to the web, OpenAI has reportedly scrapped the planned release of its next-generation AI model due to severe safety and "alignment" failures. It basically lies when convenient (they used the word "deceptive"). 

According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal, OpenAI was aiming for an October debut of GPT-6.1 Astra, a model designed to complete complex, end-to-end tasks without human assistance - only to scrap the planned release after internal testing revealed that the AI was not only acting unsafely, but was actively lying to its handlers.

According to Saachi Jain, OpenAI's head of safety systems, GPT-6.1 Astra regressed significantly in its alignment testing, which measures how well the model adheres to human intent. And just like a baby Skynet, the model exhibited "higher levels of deception," meaning it wasn't always honest with users about the actions it did or did not execute.

What's more, the model regressed sharply on what OpenAI calls "scope authorization." The AI would aggressively push forward on tasks without asking for user permission and would attempt to access external tools and services even if it was unsafe to do so. Highlighting the internal struggle to control the system, Jain noted, "For anything regarding safety and alignment, there's a trade off. You really do need to find what's the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction".

As we previously reported, on Sept. 20 an internal OpenAI research agent discovered a gap in the DNS filtering of its training sandbox and used it to query an external public chatbot despite internet-access restrictions. OpenAI's misalignment monitoring system flagged the behavior within 15 minutes, and a human reviewer picked it up three minutes later. The company subsequently said training, evaluation, and inference involving tool use for its most capable models would remain paused while it validated its containment systems and conducted additional red-teaming.

This latest cancellation does not exist in a vacuum. In July, during internal cybersecurity evaluations, OpenAI's own agents blew through restrictions designed to keep them isolated from the internet and compromised both the company's research infrastructure and Hugging Face. According to OpenAI's own postmortem, the agents communicated through unauthorized channels, exploited vulnerabilities in shared infrastructure, executed code on dozens of Hugging Face servers, obtained full root access on one server, acquired credentials to the company's messaging platform, and later gained full administrator access to an OpenAI research cluster.

OpenAI itself called the episode a "warning shot" for us and for the world, acknowledging that highly capable agents can now work around technical controls and take dangerous actions that no human directed. The company said the incidents did not affect OpenAI customer data, product functionality, or availability.

And Hugging Face wasn't the only external system involved. Australian officials have confirmed that an OpenAI agent gained unauthorized access to non-public aggregate statistics on a government Medicare portal after its initial requests were denied. Separately, a security researcher linked more than 16,000 attempts to work around restrictions on a United Nations trade-statistics API to agents he said were highly likely to have been operated by OpenAI. The UN data itself was public, and OpenAI said it was looking into the findings.

The compounding failures have forced OpenAI into a defensive crouch. The company has implemented stronger monitoring to catch agent misbehavior more quickly and tightened security requirements around internal testing. Attempting to reassure the public, Jain stated, "We want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that's in the company, or when we ship it to users. But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment".

The timing of the GPT-6.1 Astra cancellation is brutal for the ChatGPT-maker, arriving just one day before OpenAI's annual developer conference in San Francisco. Historically, the event has served as a platform to launch new services and attract developers in the fierce competition against rivals like Anthropic. Instead, OpenAI is left doing damage control, planning "deep dives" to figure out why its reinforcement learning environments are rewarding deceptive, rogue behavior.

The political and legal blowback is already accelerating. State and federal officials are zeroing in on the rapid development of these technologies. Later this week, a Senate subcommittee will hold a hearing explicitly titled, "Rogue AI: Securing the Homeland Against AI Agent Attacks."

Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, a Republican who sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in June for allegedly releasing an unsafe product, filed a motion for a temporary injunction on Monday. Uthmeier is seeking to legally block OpenAI from developing new models without third-party approved safeguards. Florida argued in the filing that tech companies "cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government". Uthmeier added, "The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help".

In response to the growing legal assault, an OpenAI spokeswoman said people want to know AI is being developed safely, "and that starts with what companies like ours do ourselves". She added, "Governments have an important role to play in setting robust safety standards for AI, and we're committed to working with Florida and other states on advancing pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry - not just one company".

And DO NOT FORGET: All of this "oh shit, the AI's about to kill us all" panic cropped up just as China's open-weight models were flooding the market, producing results effectively on par with the frontier models for many tasks while doing so far more cheaply. What a coincidence!

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 18:30

UAE's Next $25 Billion Bet On India Includes Energy Sector

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

The United Arab Emirates has expressed intent to invest another $25 billion in India, including in the energy sector, Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said at a high-level meeting in Mumbai.

The UAE has already invested about $25 billion in India and has signaled its intent to invest another $25 billion in the near term, the Indian minister said at the 14th Meeting of the India-UAE High Level Joint Task Force on Investments.

The UAE ultimately targets to have $100 billion invested in India in the long term, according to the minister.

The UAE-India meeting was co-chaired by Sheikh Hamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, managing director of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), and was attended by Thani bin Al Zeyoudi, the Emirati Minister of Foreign Trade.

The Indian minister noted that he held "productive discussions on further strengthening our robust trade & investment partnership, with a focus on advancing cooperation across energy, infrastructure, logistics, advanced technology, food security and other priority sectors."

ADIA's Al Nahyan and the Indian minister also discussed "accelerating the India-UAE economic partnership and fully leveraging the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), a landmark framework driving trade, investment, and building resilient supply chains," Goyal said.

The India-UAE bilateral trade has doubled to $100 billion since the countries signed the CEPA deal four years ago. Now they plan to double this again to $200 billion by 2032, India's Goyal said at the investment task force meeting.

Earlier this year, at the peak blockage of the Strait of Hormuz in May, India signed a strategic agreement with the United Arab Emirates to receive liquefied petroleum gas from the UAE, as well as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on strategic petroleum reserves.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed the LPG supply deal and the strategic reserves pact during a quick two-hour visit to the UAE in the middle of May, as India was scrambling to ease energy supply pressures that began to hit its economy.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 18:25

Duke Lacrosse Hoax 2.0? Cornell DA Reopens Rape Case - Accuser Described Sex As 'Voluntary, Conscious, And Consensual'

The Cornell fraternity rape case produced a national outrage campaign two years ago, after a student claimed she was raped at a fraternity house. Her allegations surfaced two weeks ago after the woman, known as Jane Doe in the lawsuit, sued seven men, the university, her sorority and the fraternity. 

People walk on the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, in February 2024. AP Photo/Seth Wenig

Except, now we find out that the accuser's original sworn statement described the encounter as consensual. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten is reopening the investigation into allegations that seven former members of Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity sexually assaulted a student in October 2024. And shall we take a guess as to why there were no charges filed?

According to CBS News, Van Houten said the woman’s November 2024 statement "did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped" by multiple men.

"On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

That's the prosecutor’s characterization of her earlier account. It conflicts sharply with the civil lawsuit filed this month - and creates an obvious question for the reopened investigation: how should those accounts be reconciled?

The woman, identified as Jane Doe, was 20 at the time. Her lawsuit alleges that she arrived at the fraternity house already intoxicated, was pressured into taking what she was told was ketamine, and was sexually assaulted by multiple men over several hours.

She reported the incident to campus police approximately three weeks afterward. The nearly two-year gap concerns the civil lawsuit; it does not mean she waited two years to contact police.

Then there are the texts.

CBS News New York obtained screenshots that a source described as an exchange between Doe and one defendant two days after the alleged assault.

In that exchange, the woman wrote that "non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal," said she liked being with him and another man, and suggested they smoke together again - "but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine."

The man replied by apologizing for "how things went down." He described his memory as “kinda fuzzy” and said he and another man felt bad about being too intoxicated to stop the situation and remove others before it got out of hand. The woman described her own memory as “super clouded too.”

So she may or may not have willingly let a group of frat boys bust a train on her, and now she's suing. 

Doe’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, confirmed that she exchanged texts with the defendant, but could not confirm that these were the specific messages. He told CBS she was traumatized and in denial, had been intoxicated to the point of incapacity, and was trying to obtain information without alienating someone who could explain what happened.

Then there's the fraternity's group chat. CBS reported a message advertising the woman’s availability for sex, followed later by “Shop still open?” and the reply “Yea.”

Van Houten called the exchange “disgusting, vulgar” and said it would be presented to the grand jury. His position is that the messages do not resolve the question of consent.

The Investigation

The university says it conducted a months-long Title IX investigation followed by a hearing at which both sides could testify and present evidence. Sanctions included expulsions and suspensions. The Chi Phi chapter closed in 2024 and remains barred from campus.

“None of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement,” Cornell said.

That, of course, is open to scrutiny. Claims that the university imposed no meaningful consequences do not comport with the expulsions, suspensions and shutting down the fraternity's chapter. Meanwhile, the political verdict has been considerably less tentative.

At a Sunday event near Cornell, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned a “culture of rape” protected by elite institutions and treated the group chat as evidence that the conduct had become normalized, according to the Associated Press. The prosecutor said his office had received a flood of messages, including insults and threats.

Public pressure can expose institutional failures. It can also reward certainty long before the underlying facts justify it.

There are substantial questions for investigators, too. Van Houten told CBS his office did not have Cornell’s Title IX records and was seeking them. He also said there was no indication that police had interviewed the seven accused men at the time.

Giuffra says his client received no investigative follow-up after her initial campus-police report. Van Houten defends the officer who took that statement as experienced and trained in trauma-informed sexual-assault investigations. He also says Doe’s lawyers never approached his office to correct the original account or request reconsideration before he contacted them following the lawsuit.

Van Houten says he hopes to present the case to a grand jury within 45 days. Cornell supports reopening the investigation, and Doe’s attorney has welcomed it while pressing for a thorough review.

For now, the public record contains a serious allegation, a sharply different earlier account as described by the prosecutor, reported text messages, competing explanations and unanswered questions about the original investigation.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 18:00

Another Federal Judge Strikes Down New York's $75 Billion Climate Superfund

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge has struck down New York's Climate Change Superfund Act, blocking the state from collecting $75 billion from fossil fuel companies to pay for projects addressing concerns the state attributed to climate change.

The Justice Department on Sept. 28 hailed the ruling as a "significant step in ... protecting American energy from state overreach." U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel issued a judgment against the law on Sept. 25 after stating two days earlier that it intruded on federal authority in multiple ways, including by regulating greenhouse gas emissions that cross state lines.

The law would have required large companies involved in fossil fuel extraction or crude oil refining to pay into a state fund over 25 years. Each company's share would have been based on greenhouse gas emissions attributed to its products from 2000 through 2024. New York intended to use the money for infrastructure and other projects to help communities address issues the state blames on climate change.

The Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency sued to block the law. They argued that New York's law ran afoul of the legal doctrine of preemption, which says that federal law takes precedence if there is a conflict with state law.

The federal government said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to decide whether and how to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It said New York's law would impose its own liability on fossil fuel producers based on emissions attributed to their products worldwide.

New York argued that its law did not regulate emissions. It said the payments would compensate the state for harm from past emissions and fund projects to protect New Yorkers from problems it attributed to climate change. Castel rejected the state's argument, saying the charges effectively regulated interstate emissions.

Castel found that the law reached beyond New York's authority even though the state planned to spend the money on local projects.

Castel also said the law infringed on foreign affairs by seeking payments from fossil fuel companies for activity outside the United States. Citing an earlier appeals court ruling, he said holding oil companies accountable for what they did outside U.S. territory would bypass diplomatic channels and "needlessly complicate the nation's foreign policy."

Two federal judges have now ruled on New York's Climate Change Superfund Act because different plaintiffs brought separate lawsuits. There were 22 states and business groups that challenged the law in the Northern District of New York, where U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes blocked it on Aug. 31.

The DOJ and EPA filed their own case in the Southern District, where Castel issued a second ruling.

"New York's woke climate change law is not only unconstitutional, it is harmful, jeopardizing every American's access to affordable and reliable energy," said Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr., in a statement on Monday.

"We are pleased with the district courts' decisions finding New York's law unlawful and recognizing that the Federal Sovereign, not the States, regulates our Nation's energy market."

Advocates such as the Fiscal Policy Institute had supported the Climate Change Superfund Act. The Fiscal Policy Institute had said that the $75 billion was needed to "adapt to rising sea levels and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events - measures that wouldn't be needed but for the high emissions caused by these companies' business activities."

New York had said the federal government didn't have standing in the case because it hadn't shown how the state's law would stop it from enforcing federal law or interfere with compliance with international agreements. The state also argued its law didn't seek to regulate emissions, just compensation for harm it attributed to climate change.

The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James did not respond to an emailed request for comment. James was named as a defendant in the lawsuit in her official capacity.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 17:20

Texas Governor Declares Disaster Over Soaring Diesel Prices

Texas ranchers and truckers could start seeing some relief at the fuel pump starting this week after Gov. Greg Abbott proclaimed a statewide disaster on Sept. 28 to ease diesel shortages.

"Texas agriculture and freight run on diesel," Abbott said in a statement.

"Record prices put both industries at risk and raise costs for every Texas family."

Record-high diesel prices in the Lone Star State have increased in the past few weeks, hovering at an average of $5.90 per gallon on Sept. 28, about 10 cents less than a week ago on average, but $2.70 more than a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The national average reached $6.44 per gallon on Sept. 28, about 2 cents less than the day before but $2.77 more than last year, AAA reported.

As Jill McLaughlin further report for The Epoch Times, Abbott's declaration allows for the expanded use of dyed diesel on Texas roads and raises the allowable weight for fuel, agricultural, and timber loads.

The proclamation also suspends the state's low emission diesel rules to a level authorized by federal environmental standards. This is expected to increase diesel supplies and ease the record-high fuel prices.

Abbott also asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to waive federal ultra-low sulfur diesel requirements.

Dyed diesel is off-road fuel marked with solvent red 164 dye and is typically only used in agricultural operations. The fuel is sold without a motor fuel tax, which is why the state usually prohibits its use on public roadways.

Using red-dyed diesel doesn't compromise fuel quality or engine performance, but it can stain tanks, hoses, and skin, according to Senergy Petroleum.

"From a performance standpoint, clear diesel and dyed diesel are virtually identical," the company stated.

The Texas governor sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zelden on Sept. 28, asking for a temporary Clean Air Act waiver of federal ultra-low sulfur diesel rules and the Texas low emission diesel rules that apply in 110 counties.

The rules limit which diesel can be sold, and a waiver would let the state allow more fuel to reach Texas pumps, Abbott said.

The Texas Forestry Association applauded Abbott's diesel declaration.

"A BIG WIN FOR LOGGING & TEXAS FORESTRY!" the association posted on X.

"Gov. Abbott's new disaster proclamation expands dyed-diesel use on Texas roads and allows fuel, agricultural, and timber loads up to 95,000 pounds."

Oil prices surged on Sept. 28 after President Donald Trump turned down Iran's conditional seven-day proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He told reporters over the weekend that he had rejected it and declined to rule out restarting strikes on Iran ahead of the midterms.

The rejection dashed hopes of diplomacy seen last week at the U.N. General Assembly, said oil expert Patrick De Haan in a social media post. Early trading sent oil prices slightly higher for domestic and international crude.

Prices for diesel fuel nationwide have rocketed to record levels this month after a combination of events reduced supplies and caused uncertainties in the global oil market.

Conflicts in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine have slowed delivery of supplies reaching the United States.

Diesel supplies are expected to remain tight and below average through much of next year, according to an analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the federal statistical and analytical agency for energy data.

"We assume global production of distillate fuel will remain below last year's levels in the coming months, contributing to low U.S. diesel inventories and high diesel prices," the EIA reported on Sept. 9.

However, oil prices are expected to start falling at the start of next year, as production in the Middle East rises in the coming months with more traffic coming through the Strait of Hormuz and alternative routes out of the region, the EIA reported.

U.S. natural gas inventories are on track to be above the five-year average at the start of winter, due to rising production in the U.S. Permian Basin and Haynesville Shale regions, according to the EIA.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 17:00

The Industrialization Of Fraud: How Global Scam Farms Are Evolving To Target Your Wealth

Authored by Adam H. Douglas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Financial fraud has morphed into a massive, highly organized global industry powered by transnational scam farms. These industrial-scale operations are largely concentrated in Southeast Asia but are rapidly expanding their reach to target your wealth.

AI is helping scam farms make fraud more convincing and scalable, making it more important to recognize the warning signs. NONGASIMO/Shutterstock

These syndicates are becoming much more sophisticated. They deploy advanced psychological tactics and emerging technologies to drain your life savings.

But how does this brutal business model work? And what are some actionable consumer defense strategies you can employ to protect your finances?

Quick Answer: How Do Scam Farms Work?

Scam farms are organized fraud syndicates, and one of the most popular techniques they use is a devastating, long-term confidence trick coined a pig-butchering scam. Scammers spend months building deep personal trust with you, metaphorically “fattening” you up with fake initial investment profits before stealing your entire principal. These operations are rarely run by lone hackers - they are orchestrated by massive, industrial-scale scam farms often located in Cambodia and Myanmar, but slowly spreading to many other countries.

Global scam farms operate like illicit corporations with specialized teams for different stages of the fraud. Alarmingly, many front-line workers in these compounds are victims of human trafficking, forced into labor under the threat of violence.

The Rise of Industrial-Scale Fraud Compounds

The volume of money moving through these transnational fraud syndicates is staggering.

Recently, the United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) identified approximately $12.7 billion in suspicious financial activity tied to digital asset investment scams over a two-year period. This highlights how overseas scam centers have become a structural threat to the global financial system.

Law enforcement agencies are pushing back, but the criminals continuously adapt.

Following major international enforcement efforts and crackdowns launched in Cambodia throughout 2025 and 2026, many scam operators simply relocated their headquarters. They bribe local officials and employ professional money launderers to move stolen funds through complex networks of offshore stablecoin exchanges.

The average American is up against a multi-billion-dollar shadow industry, making extreme caution necessary.

The Anatomy of a Long-Term Crypto Investment Scam

modern scam farms utilize a slow, methodical approach to social engineering. The process begins with a seemingly innocent mistake, such as a text message from a wrong number or a match on a dating application.

If you reply, the scammer initiates a friendly conversation. Over weeks, they cultivate a relationship, posing as a successful entrepreneur.

Once trust is firmly established, they casually introduce the topic of cryptocurrency investing. To build credibility, they direct you to download a trading platform that looks entirely legitimate.

You're encouraged to start with a small deposit, and the platform will show fabricated, extraordinary returns. Once you deposit a substantial portion of your wealth, the platform freezes your account, the scammer vanishes, and your funds are instantly funneled into the syndicate's wallets.

How Scammers Use Artificial Intelligence to Scale

Global scam farms are increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into their operations. AI allows criminal networks to scale their reach exponentially without sacrificing personalization.

• Previously, a scammer could only manage a few victims due to language barriers.
• Now, syndicates use large language models to automate thousands of interactions simultaneously.
• These tools instantly translate messages into flawless English, eliminating grammatical errors.

Scammers also utilize AI-generated deepfakes. If you ask to verify their identity on a video call, they use real-time face-swapping software to appear exactly like the stolen photographs used to build their fake profile.

Actionable Consumer Defense: Red Flags to Watch For

Defending your wealth requires vigilance and an understanding of behavioral red flags rather than purely technical indicators. Here are the critical warning signs:

• The Accidental Text: Unsolicited messages claiming to be a wrong number that pivot into a friendly conversation are almost certainly scam attempts.
• The Rush to Private Messaging: Scammers quickly move conversations away from monitored dating applications and onto encrypted messaging services.
• Too Good to Be True Returns: Anyone guaranteeing consistent, risk-free returns in the cryptocurrency market is lying.
• Unfamiliar Trading Platforms: If you're instructed to use a specific, obscure trading application you can't verify independently, it's likely a fraudulent platform.
• High-Pressure Tactics for Taxes: When you attempt to withdraw your funds and the platform demands an upfront tax using additional funds, this is typically the final phase of the theft.

FAQs: Global Scam Farms What Is a Pig-Butchering Scam and How Does it Work?

A pig butchering scam is a devastating fraud tactic where criminals build trust with a victim over an extended period. The scammers initiate contact through dating applications or accidental text messages, eventually moving the conversation to investments. They convince you to deposit money into a fraudulent cryptocurrency platform that displays fake profits. This creates a false sense of security, encouraging you to invest larger amounts. Once you attempt to withdraw your money, the scammers lock your account and disappear, taking your entire investment with them. These scams are highly organized and designed to drain your life savings methodically.

What Are the Red Flags of a Crypto Investment Scam?

The primary red flag of a crypto investment scam is an unsolicited online contact who eventually steers the conversation toward finance. Be extremely wary if someone guarantees high returns with zero risk or pressures you to act quickly on an insider tip. Another major warning sign is being directed to download an unfamiliar trading application that cannot be found on official app stores or verified by independent financial authorities. Asking you to pay an additional, unexpected tax or fee just to withdraw your own money is another hallmark of a scam.

Can You Recover Funds Lost to a Global Fraud Syndicate?

Recovering funds lost to a global fraud syndicate is exceptionally difficult and extremely rare. These organizations often employ professional money launderers who can move your deposits through complex networks of offshore stablecoin exchanges and cryptocurrency mixers - the funds are nearly impossible to trace or freeze. You should report the crime to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center and local law enforcement, but the money is likely gone. One more note: be highly suspicious of secondary "recovery companies" that contact you promising to retrieve your money for an upfront fee, as these are often the same scammers looking for a bonus score.

What Is FinCEN Doing About International Scam Compounds?

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is actively working to disrupt international scam compounds by tracking the illicit flow of money. FinCEN collects and analyzes suspicious activity reports from domestic financial institutions to identify the money laundering networks used by these syndicates. They recently identified billions of dollars linked to overseas scam centers and issued alerts urging banks to monitor for specific transaction patterns. Furthermore, FinCEN shares this critical financial intelligence with international law enforcement partners to coordinate global crackdowns, freeze criminal assets where possible, and dismantle the financial infrastructure that allows these transnational organizations to operate and profit.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 16:20

Oil Slides As Qatar Touts 'Talks' Again; Iran Struck Large Crude Tanker Overnight

Iran is said to have struck a Very Large Crude Carrier in the Strait of Hormuz late on Monday, signaling what will likely be the resumption of strikes on foreign vessels seeking to navigate the Strait of Hormuz, after last week's diplomatic talks at the UN failed to produce a breakthrough. Still, for the time being more oil is being shipped through the strait compared to where the situation was for the past many months of war.

Maritime monitor UKMTO indicated the vessel was struck by a suspected unknown projectile, resulting in a fire. The fire looks to have been extinguished quickly, with the crew safe and the vessel underway on its transit.

On Tuesday Iran's parliament speaker Bagher Ghalibaf has reiterated that America should know that "in a region where we don't sell oil, no one will sell oil." He followed with, "If our security is not ensured, no infrastructure will be safe." Later in the day, Fars reported that another drone has been fired an 'illicit' ship, however few details have been given.

via IRNA

Ghalibaf further described during a parliament session that "the era of intimidation and threats is over" and that the Islamic Republic would escalate its responses.

But he also echoed prior words of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who at last week's UN General Assembly said that Iran still seeks diplomacy while asserting its rights.

Similar messaging has been newly issued on the Iranian military front, with Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, who is a senior advisor to the Supreme Leader, saying that the armed forces stand ready to expand the confrontation to new fronts.

Referencing the ongoing Houthi conflict with the Saudis, wherein the Iran-aligned rebel group has captured Yemen's Red Sea coast, Safavi stated, "The addition of the Bab al-Mandab Strait would change the scene of the war," as quoted in IRIB News.

While some reports have long pointed to the likelihood that IRGC advisers assisted the Houthis this month, the high-ranking general suggested Tehran could get more directly involved, or could tell the Houthis to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait to all foreign vessels.

So far, Houthi statements have sought to assure the rest of the world, particularly Europe, that international vessels can still safely pass through, with the exception of Saudi or Israeli-linked ships.

On the question of Strait of Hormuz transit, The Wall Street Journal summarizes the conclusions of several monitoring firms:

Iran’s ability to choke off oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz—and use that as leverage in talks with the U.S.—is breaking down, raising the risk it will resort to military escalation to bolster its position.

The erosion of Iran’s position comes as the U.S. Navy and Gulf oil producers have become better at fending off or evading Iranian attacks, allowing more tankers to cross the strait.

Middle Eastern crude exports rebounded this month to around their highest level since the war began in February, oil data trackers say. Shipments via Hormuz and bypass routes were delivering just under 80% of their prewar regional flows as of last week, according to tracker Kpler.

Ghalibaf's aforementioned threat of "no one will sell oil" promises to change this equation - though clearly US Marines are directly involved in trying to protect shipping.

"So far this month, crude exports from major Middle Eastern producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the U.A.E. and others—moving through Hormuz and alternative routes—have risen to almost 13 million barrels a day," WSJ notes. "That is the highest total since February, when the region exported nearly 19 million barrels a day, according to ship tracker Huax."

As for talks, Iran has insisted there are no direct talks and that the nuclear file is not up for negotiation, at least until after the war ends with a ceasefire deal in place.

🔺 Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied reports that Tehran has shifted its position in talks with the US, telling state media Monday that there has been no discussion of the nuclear issue, "let alone flexibility."

"Iran's position has not changed at all," he told IRNA… https://t.co/FXcKMMvoTj

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 29, 2026

According to a summary of a press briefing by Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari on Tuesday::

• Qatar and other mediators are still delivering messages between Iran and the United States and Doha will continue these efforts.
• Mediators are holding meetings and exchanging possible solutions between the two sides to end the seven-month conflict.
• The US-Israeli war on Iran has inflicted a heavy toll on the global economy and the upcoming winter season will make the situation worse with energy shipments largely blocked.
• Qatar condemns Israeli comments on taking over territory in Lebanon and Gaza and demands unimpeded aid to reach the beleaguered Palestinians.
• The Israeli government is trying to force “a new reality” in the occupied West Bank that contradicts the Oslo accords.
• Qatar welcomes actions by the European Union and other countries against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

And like clockwork: WTI futures are on session lows, having added to losses after comments from the Qatar Foreign Ministry on possible US-Iran solutions.

Rial at record low against US dollar, with traders in Tehran exchanging more than 2.5 million rials to the dollar.

Iran Is Battered but Not Collapsing

Six months of war left Iran economically battered, its society exhausted, and its politics conflicted. But Iran is neither on the verge of collapse nor a bastion of unity and stability.

My piece for @ME_Council https://t.co/nrLXs9Q9tz

— Negar Mortazavi (@NegarMortazavi) September 29, 2026 More Latest Developments

via Newsquawk

• Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi said Tehran discussed proposals with Qatari mediators to present to the US, and response is to be relayed to Tehran through Qatari mediators, adds conditions set by Supreme Leader must be met to reopen Strait of Hormuz. If the US wants a deal or peace, Iran has offered a solution. He will fly to Tehran in a few hours, and the Qataris will know how to reach us whenever they have the answer. Expects US response on Tuesday. Communications and messages exchanged by Qatari and Pakistani mediators have always been, but now they have taken a more serious form due to the plan presented by Iran.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said Iran's positions have not changed and conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz are clear, while their position on other matters is clear. Hopeful the US' final answer will be conveyed via Qatari "by tomorrow".
• Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei said media reported about the content of consultations with the Qatari mediator are baseless speculation, noting such accounts have no basis in reality and no discussion of the details of the issues took place.
• Iran Foreign Ministry Iranian delegation met with Qatar mediator on Monday afternoon at the UNGA, adds media speculation on Qatar talks is false and that there were no talks held on detailed issues with Qatari mediator. said:. Iran delegation will depart New York for Tehran on Monday night.
• Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei said no negotiations will begin until the US fulfils its commitments in the Islamabad understanding, while he stated that Iranian diplomats lack permission for bilateral or trilateral talks in the current situation. said:. US failed to release blocked funds after Islamabad deal.
• UN Secretary-General Guterres requested in a meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi for a continuation of negotiations to achieve peace, according to Fars News Agency.
• US President Trump posted "Axios just released a story that “Trump” offered Sanctions Relief and Frozen Funds to Iran. This is untrue. I offered them NOTHING! Axios’ story, like most others, is a HOAX". Full post "Axios just released a story that “Trump” offered Sanctions Relief and Frozen Funds to Iran. This is untrue. I offered them NOTHING! Axios’ story, like most others, is a HOAX, used only for purposes of satisfying their Trump Derangement Syndrome. They should withdraw this fake story, IMMEDIATELY!".

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:50

Trump Launches America.Gov Website Simplifying Access To Government Services

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Sept. 29 directing all federal agencies to integrate services with a new website designed to make it easier for users to find information and interact with the government.

He described the tool as "one of the most revolutionary product launches of all time."

America.gov will serve as a landing page consolidating nearly 30,000 federal government websites into one chatbot, powered by SpaceX's Grok and Google's Gemini. The site allows users to ask questions and receive guidance about procuring services.

"The federal government no longer stands in your way, and it stands only at your service," Trump said.

"We're simplifying it. We're glamorizing it. We're making it what it should be."

Plans for full integration with more than 10,000 forms across agencies will provide opportunities for full-service enrollment, where visitors can "apply, enroll, and track progress directly in the chat," according to a statement on the new site.

Users will find a "front door" to the government replacing the "endless maze" of websites and regulations, according to the president.

"It's not just simply a website. It's a restoration of America's founding promises, and it's a reinvention of your government for the 21st century and beyond," Trump said. "We're putting power and control back into the hands of the people, right where it belongs."

Once complete, Americans can request replacement Social Security cards, apply for passports and name changes, and access countless other government services.

"And with this, nobody can any longer complain about providing proof of citizenship or voter ID," Trump said, while calling for lawmakers to pass the SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship to register and IDs to vote. "They're always saying it's too complicated. It's not complicated anymore."

Privacy is built into the system, no login is required, the site does not track visitors, and no personal information or conversations are recorded, according to administration officials.

Preventing data leaks and hacks is a priority, Trump said during his address, noting rapid advancement in technology and potential threats while touting security precautions against any attempts to infiltrate the system.

Visitors can type queries into the text box, mirroring modern AI interfaces. The chatbot can also translate three spoken languages - English, Spanish, and French - with more additions coming soon.

While the technology is built on artificial intelligence platforms, the president is proposing a universal name change for the innovation, suggesting that super intelligence, or SI, is superior to the "artificial" alternative.

Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia, the nation's first chief design officer, revealed the website to the public in a product-demo style presentation at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium in the nation's capital.

"There was a time when Americans entered great public buildings to meet our government, and when they did, the spaces achieved a user experience unlike anything else," Gebbia said, noting the impact of architectural design and grand rooms that communicated "dignity and respect" to all who entered.

"America.gov carries that idea into the age of super intelligence to reimagine a government built around you that respects your time, that works for you, that we can be proud of as Americans."

Approximately 39 million Americans visit federal government websites every day, collectively spending more than 10 billion hours annually on government-related paperwork, according to administration officials.

The website is live as of Sept. 29, with more features expected in the coming months.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:45

Senate Passes 'Protect College Sports Act'

The Senate on Sept. 28 passed a bill that seeks to bring stability to the rapidly changing landscape of collegiate sports, sending it to the House of Representatives.

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 passed on a 77-22 vote. The bill aims to address growing concerns surrounding athlete compensation, transfer rules, conference realignment, and long-term athlete protections. Since the House is out of session, it is unlikely to vote on the bill until after the November midterm elections.

In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump called the Senate's passage of the bill "a really big deal."

"It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves," he said.

Under the legislation, the NCAA would be exempt from antitrust laws, and there would be a nationwide standard for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules that would override the current patchwork of state laws.

As Jackson Richman reports further for The Epoch Times,The bill would allow student-athletes to use five seasons of eligibility within a five-year window and limit athletes to one transfer during their college careers. Division I schools would also be required to honor scholarships for up to 10 years after an athlete's final season.

Additionally, it would revise the Sports Broadcasting Act, allowing athletic conferences to pool television rights.

Another major component of the bill is player health and safety provisions.

Division I schools would be required to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries both during participation and for five years after an athlete's final competition.

The legislation would mandate catastrophic injury coverage, access to second opinions, and post-career physical examinations, and establish a $60 million medical trust fund from the NCAA's coffers to assist smaller schools and athletes with long-term medical conditions.

The bill would also create an independent office within college athletics to provide confidential, free guidance to student-athletes and help resolve disputes involving schools, conferences, or athletic associations.

College football coaches would be prohibited from leaving midseason to take on another college football coaching job. This provision came after Lane Kiffin left his role as head coach of the University of Mississippi football team in November 2025 to take the same title at Louisiana State University.

Under the measure, at least one-third of governing boards or rulemaking committees within athletic associations would be required to consist of current or former student-athletes.

The bill also targets what lawmakers describe as abuses within the NIL system. It would ban compensation arrangements intended to bypass revenue-sharing limits or disguise pay-for-play incentives while preserving legitimate education- and athletics-related benefits established under the House settlement framework.

Under the House v. NCAA settlement, Division I athletes are eligible to receive a share of up to $20.5 million in school-generated revenue, with that cap expected to increase over time. The settlement also included nearly $2.8 billion in back pay for athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024.

The Protect College Sports Act would extend the revenue-sharing cap beyond the expiration of the House settlement after the 2034-35 academic year while allowing annual inflation adjustments.

The measure would create a bipartisan congressional commission to study the long-term future of college athletics, including athlete compensation, Olympic and women's sports, spending limits, health and safety standards, agent regulations, and the overall structure of college sports.

One unresolved issue in college athletics is whether student-athletes should be classified as employees of their schools.

The new legislation does not take a position. Congress has previously attempted to address the issue through measures such as the SCORE Act and SAFE Act. The House had planned to vote on the SCORE Act in May, but the vote was canceled amid concerns about insufficient support. That proposal would prevent student-athletes from being classified as employees.

Moreover, the legislation would prohibit certain large-revenue conferences, such as the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference, from consolidating with or acquiring other conferences. It would limit the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC to 19 schools. Any school from these conferences that changes to another conference would need to operate independently for three years. This provision would sunset in six years.

The bill has the support of the major conferences such as the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference, and others.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who introduced the bill with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said the bill is necessary to bring sanity to college sports.

"The Protect College Sports Act is bipartisan legislation designed to bring order to the chaos, designed to put simple, common-sense rules in place so that college sports remain strong and vibrant for decades to come," Cruz said at a press conference on Sept. 14.

Cantwell said at the press conference, "This is about reining in the bad practices that are happening in college sports today, the runaway costs that are sending people to the state legislature, asking for bailout from taxpayers to pay for sports, asking people to take endowment funds that really should go to things like wheat research or AI, and instead have to be spent because of the runaway arms race in sports spending."

Most importantly, the bill has the support of President Donald Trump.

"The alternative just is no good. ... We have to get it voted on, and we're counting on the House - and I think the House will come through, too," the president told political commentator Clay Travis in an interview on Sept. 26.

Opposition to the bill has come from the NAACP and some Democrats.

"We recognize that the bill contains provisions concerning scholarships, healthcare, athlete agents, safety standards, and student-athlete representation," the NAACP's president and CEO, Derrick Johnson, wrote in an Aug. 4 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

"College athletes deserve those protections. They should not, however, be used as political cover for provisions that insulate institutions and conferences from legal and economic accountability."

In a speech on the Senate floor on Sept. 16, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) disagreed with those who advocate for the bill.

"It's not about the safety, it's not about the well-being, it's not about the education of college athletes," he said. "This is a money play, plain and simple."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:25

Supreme Court Lets Trump's Third-Country Deportations Resume, Takes Case

Update (1516ET): The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations and agreed to hear the underlying dispute this winter.

In a brief emergency-docket order in DHS v. D.V.D., the justices stayed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s Feb. 25 judgment, which had blocked the Department of Homeland Security from sending people with final removal orders to countries not named in those orders unless they first received notice and a chance to raise persecution or torture claims.

The stay puts the First Circuit’s Sept. 18 ruling on hold and lets DHS restart removals under its March 2025 guidance while the case proceeds.

The Court also treated the government’s application as a petition for review and granted certiorari. Argument is set for the December 2026 sitting. The stay lasts until the Court issues its final judgment.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay.

The order is the Court’s third intervention in the same litigation. It previously paused Murphy’s preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025, and clarified on July 3, 2025, that the pause applied in full - including a flight the administration sought to send to South Sudan after it was diverted to a U.S. base in Djibouti.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court last week that the First Circuit’s late-night dissolution of its own stay had thrown removal operations into chaos, including cancellation of a flight carrying about 70 deportees - some with criminal convictions - to three countries.

DHS counsel James Percival has said more than 25,000 people have already been removed under the program. Rights groups put the figure at more than 25,000 people sent to about 29 countries, many of them to Mexico.

The justices directed briefing on whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur are allowed under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), and whether the third-country guidance is unlawful under the removal statute, the Due Process Clause, or CAT/FARRA.

Tuesday’s order does not decide those questions. It restores the policy for now and tees them up for a full hearing.

* * *

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24 to revive its third-country deportation program that sends deportees to countries that were not named in their removal orders.

The Trump administration has said it removes individuals to third countries when it cannot quickly return them to their home countries.

However, critics say the policy is used to bypass legal restrictions and deter illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the program twice on its emergency docket.

As Matthew Vadum further reports via The Epoch Times, following Supreme Court rules, the application is addressed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because she oversees emergency appeals from decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the unusual step of asking Jackson to refer the stay request to the full court instead of ruling on it herself if she will not freeze the lower court's order.

Jackson voted against the government both times when the litigation previously came before the high court.

Sauer said lower court decisions were throwing into chaos the delicate arrangements the government has negotiated with other nations to take in deportees who are not their citizens.

"Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews," he said.

Disrupting those plans "imposes massive costs on the government," and forces it to engage in new instances of diplomatic engagement with countries "who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption."

The filing concerns a First Circuit ruling from Sept. 18 that struck down DHS guidance allowing removal based on diplomatic assurances that receiving countries will not persecute or torture people sent to them.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about "blanket assurances" from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won't be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.

The panel affirmed the final judgment U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued Feb. 25 vacating the DHS guidance. In its Sept. 18 decision, it affirmed the striking down of the policy.

Murphy previously certified the respondents, who are people with final removal orders, as a nationwide class.

The respondents argue that the government may deport a removable noncitizen to a willing third country, but not without inquiring about whether the person would be persecuted or tortured in that country.

The case is known as DHS v. D.V.D.

On Sept. 24, Jackson did not respond to Sauer's request. Instead, she directed the other side to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Sept. 28.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:16

Why Businesses Haven't Left California - Yet

Authored by Tom Wilson via the Mises Institute,

California has a strange relationship with business. Its lawmakers seem determined to make doing business more expensive, yet companies continue to operate there. Taxes rise, regulations accumulate, and new compliance requirements are added, but California remains home to some of the most successful companies in the world. That raises a question more interesting than whether California is "business friendly." Why do businesses continue to stay - and how far can the state push them before they finally decide the benefits of California are no longer worth the cost?

Adam Smith understood part of the answer long before California became an economic powerhouse. In The Wealth of Nations, he explained that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. California offers businesses an enormous and highly-developed market. Its ports connect them to the world, its universities and industries provide specialized labor, and decades of accumulated capital and expertise create opportunities that aren't easily duplicated elsewhere. Silicon Valley wasn't built overnight, and neither were California's entertainment, agriculture, and international trade networks. Those advantages help explain why businesses tolerate costs in California that they might never accept in a smaller or less developed market. But California shouldn't mistake an advantage for immunity.

Some businesses have already decided those advantages are no longer enough. Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas. Chevron - a company with roots in California stretching back more than a century - moved its headquarters to Houston. Oracle moved its headquarters from California to Austin. These aren't struggling companies desperately searching for somewhere cheaper to survive. They are enormously successful businesses with the resources to operate almost anywhere. Their departures don't prove that California's economy is collapsing. They demonstrate something more important: even California's considerable economic advantages have a price.

A business doesn't have to leave California for California to lose. A company headquartered in Los Angeles can keep its offices there while building its next warehouse, factory, or distribution center in Arizona, Nevada, or Texas. No headline announces another company fleeing the state. The investment simply lands somewhere else. Multiply that decision across thousands of companies making thousands of quiet calls each year, and it may matter more than any single high-profile departure.

One bill now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk offers a good example of the direction California continues to take. AB 2599 would require certain large companies with sufficiently old corporate roots to search historical records for connections to slavery and report what they find to the state. Whatever one thinks of the goal, those records won't search themselves. Someone has to locate them, attorneys have to determine what must be disclosed, and employees have to ensure the company complies. For a corporation with billions in revenue, that expense alone is unlikely to send it running for the Texas border. But that is precisely the point. If Newsom signs the bill, it becomes another requirement, another expense, and another reason for a business to consider making its next investment somewhere else.

California's strength can mask this. Silicon Valley doesn't vanish because of one more regulation, the ports don't relocate to Nevada, and Hollywood isn't rebuilt in Austin overnight. That durability can convince lawmakers businesses will tolerate almost anything. But Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee don't need to match everything California offers - they only need to close the gap enough that lower costs start to win. Workforces can be trained, capital can move, and networks can form elsewhere. California didn't earn a permanent lease on its advantages; it just got there first.

This helps explain why businesses haven't abandoned California. Its markets, access to trade, skilled labor, capital, and generations of accumulated economic activity still provide enormous advantages. But those advantages shouldn't be confused with permanence. Every new tax, mandate, and compliance requirement asks businesses to calculate once again whether California is worth the price. Some have already answered no. Others continue to stay. The question California's lawmakers should be asking isn't how much more businesses can afford to pay. It's how many times they can raise the price of staying before more businesses decide to build their future somewhere else.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:05

Elon Musk Makes A Move On The Banks

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times,

When Elon Musk took over Twitter, fired four out of five employees, and rebranded it X (just because he thought it sounded cool), the talking heads predicted doom for the company. The opposite happened. It is now one of the most popular sources of news in the world, and a major delivery system for what social media is supposed to be.

He always had more in mind. He explained at the outset that he wanted to turn X into the "everything app." I winced when I heard those words. As someone who worked in web development for years, I learned to regard every promise of a "one-stop shop" to be foolish. It never happens. Best to pick one thing you do well and stick with it.

To my own amazement, X is indeed taking steps toward being the Everything App. Not yet, of course, but the advent of his X Money platform is major and serious. It is being rolled out gradually to premium members. Under the new content-creators payout program, people are paid within the app and invited to use the service for transferring money.

Described thusly, it would seem to be another version of Zelle or Venmo and therefore not that much to notice, much less celebrate. But when you look at the details of what X Money is doing, another reality emerges. It would appear that this app is making a move on the banks themselves.

The evidence is on the app now. It offers a way to link your paycheck to X Money to enjoy a quicker payout than if your paycheck flows to your bank account. Speed is one thing, and a good thing, but why else would you do this?

The key comes in the details which have not been advertised (Musk doesn't like old-style marketing). These are not regular dormant cash accounts like you get in a regular checking account. They pay a return. Not just any return. The return is higher than you would otherwise get in a normal money market.

For now the Annual Percent Yield (APY) is an eye-popping 6 percent as an initial customer-acquisition rate.

Not only that, the X Money card that comes digitally with the service (and physically on the ask) offers fully 3 percent cash back.

A high rate plus instant peer-to-peer transmission, a metal Visa card with 3 percent cash back, and early direct deposit is meant to pull balances and daily activity onto the platform.

What you notice from these terms is that this goes way beyond a mere money-transmission service. What's being provided here, with quick and easy signups, is a highly lucrative vehicle for serious investment. Put your cash in and have it earn 6 percent. That beats inflation. With 3 percent cash back, you are way ahead of the game. That is reason enough to switch.

As a user I immediately found myself in a bind. Initially I thought I would enjoy spending my X Money on groceries and movie tickets or something along those lines. But with this level of earning power, I will lose money if I do that. I would be forgoing the return from the money held. Better to use the cash in my bank or my credit card that also pays 3 percent cash back.

The calculation here favors keeping the money in X Money, not spending it. Indeed, the calculator favors moving cash from banks into X Money and earning the return. To be sure, that 6 percent could change in a year or two or three. It would be up to how the app is managed.

Meanwhile, do you understand what this means? It means an actual reward for ... saving money! Imagine that. Cash that earns a return on an app that allows peer-to-peer transfer at zero cost. This is disruptive innovation of the sort we've come to expect from this man and his companies.

Elon has designated the X Money app for now to be a loss leader in direct revenue but a huge investment in becoming what he likely thinks it can be in the long run: an actual option to the banks.

There might even be more afoot here. The banking rails themselves are provided by Cross River Bank. Founded in 2008, the bank carved out a special niche in working with new digital companies that focus on in-app service provision and edgier products like cryptocurrency. It is FDIC-insured but eschews traditional banking in favor of innovation. Even with its smaller capitalization, it is an ideal partner for a disruptive technology like X Money.

Recall too that Elon Musk was one of the founders of PayPal. It was started with a high hope of developing a new form of money transmission and even a new form of money. It eventually found itself regulated out of that vision to become what it is today, which is a highly valued means of payment for the digital age.

X Money seems to learn from mistakes made in those days to build out fully banking services from the very foundation. With the inclusion of crypto as part of the banking rails, we can easily imagine a future in which X Money integrates with a service like Coinbase to move money from dollars to crypto and back again.

One thing that is notable to me is the effortlessness of the signups and verifications. The developers have learned that customers recoil at too many screens, too much language, too many aggressive demands for passwords and accounts. They are using the latest technology to make signups and management extremely easy and clean.

That said, X Money does of course comply with all the arduous federal regulations concerning Know Your Customer laws and tax-reporting requirements. This is by no means an app that places a premium on your privacy. Even to make it work requires government IDs and 3D facial scans from our phone. I despise all of that while also understanding that this is the price any financial entrepreneur pays to make anything innovative these days. X Money is compliant across the board, which, from my point of view, is unavoidably regrettable.

It's entirely possible that Elon has a big vision for this platform that he has not yet shared. Indeed, I'm struck by how much of the system that he has built so far has not been advertised at all. It's extremely interesting how the rollout is going. The app presents direct information to the customer screen by screen, the pitch, the conditions, the advantages. Normal advertising speaks to the masses; Elon's way is to speak to the individual user. It's very different.

We can imagine two polar opposite futures with this new service.

Optimistically, it becomes the innovator of a new form of money and monetary services that eventually replaces paper money and even the dollar.

Remember that the app is global. What if the assets of X and other companies emerge as the asset baking of a new form of currency?

Pessimistically, X Money becomes just another new layer of the emergent financial control grid that spies on us and even worse: the integration of money and social media reminds one of China's Social Credit System. This future sometimes feels baked into the technologies we use and the deep relationship of tech companies and the government.

Which will it be? We do not know. But from what I can see, there is a strong rationale for expecting this platform to be a major player and going concern in the future world of money and finance.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 15:00

Trump Mulls Big Russia Sanctions Relief For Prisoners, Risking Wrath Of Allies & Hawks

Diplomacy is obviously stalemated and almost non-existent when it comes to the Iran conflict and Hormuz Strait crisis, and so the White House needs some level of a 'win'.

It seems President Trump continues to look for this in the years-long Ukraine crisis, as he's said to now be mulling a major deal which would see the Kremlin free some political prisoners in exchange for a significant easing of sanctions on the Russian economy.

The Atlantic on Tuesday in reporting the initiative characterized the potential deal as so sweeping that it "could outrage even his allies." Of course, the Zelensky government and Europe is actively trying to tighten the screws on Moscow.

via AFP

But the proposed plan would in many ways be a reversal of the prior policy of 'global isolation' of Putin. The report says:

Donald Trump’s envoy to Eastern Europe came to the president with a new idea for breaking the deadlock in U.S. relations with Moscow. The plan involved a quid pro quo reminiscent of the Cold War: The Kremlin would free some political prisoners, and the United States would reward their release by easing sanctions on the Russian economy. Trump signed on.

This new initiative, which is still in its early stages and has not been previously reported, promises to advance several of Trump’s goals at once. It would help reintegrate Russia into the global economy and broaden Trump’s talks with the Kremlin beyond the intractable war in Ukraine, which his envoys have failed to end after more than a year of diplomacy. It would create a path for the U.S. to sign lucrative deals involving Russian oil, diesel, rare earth minerals, and other commodities. As a bonus, the release of prisoners on humanitarian grounds could bolster Trump’s case for his long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump's envoy to Eastern Europe, John Coale, had reportedly first pitched the initiative "a few months ago," and "Trump signed on," the report notes.

However, it's said to still be early stages, but if it gets close to the finish line the plan "is likely to outrage the Ukrainians, Europeans, and even many of Trump's allies on Capitol Hill," The Atlantic underscores.

But such concerns have never stopped Trump before, and it could actually help jump-start the long dormant peace process, and possibly cool soaring tensions with NATO.

The report also comments that "any potential business deal between the US and Russia would risk funneling money to the Russian military even as it continues to terrorize Ukraine and threatens a wider war against US allies in Europe."

An important caveat which could hinder an ambitious prisoner release for sanctions relief is that fact that Trump just drastically upped the ante by earlier this month signing a bill co-authored by the late NeoCon senator Lindsey Graham which authorized the president to "impose severe sanctions on Russia and its trading partners."

Lindsey Graham, even from the grave, still dictating -- or at least being the avatar of -- Trump's foreign policy.

From "I'll end the Ukraine/Russia war in 24 hours" to "More sanctions on Russia!"

Also, those who claimed Putin ruled Trump through blackmail can't explain this: https://t.co/rb7e44ZJ7E

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 19, 2026

So if Trump was wishing to soon strike a deal and cool tensions with Russia, why sign the Graham bill? A lot of contradictions in Washington policy remain. The Trump administration has also had a running 'love-hate' relationship with Zelensky. At times Zelensky is being berated, at others he's being praised. Like the Iran conflict, MAGA and conservatives in general have by and large been divided on the issue of Ukraine and what US policy should be.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 14:45

Education Department Scraps Biden-Era Title IX Gender Identity Protections

Via American Greatness,

The Education Department announced Monday that it has formally rescinded the Biden administration's interpretation of Title IX that extended sex-discrimination protections to students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Schools will instead return to Title IX regulations adopted during President Donald Trump's first administration in 2020, a move the department says will protect women's sports and provide greater clarity for schools and families.

"Thanks to today's action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and Congressional intent - reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said.

"We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls," she added.

The Biden-era rule had already been struck down in federal court following legal challenges brought by Republican-led states.

Since Trump returned to office, his administration has pursued policies defining sex under Title IX in biological terms and has pressed schools to change policies allowing transgender athletes to participate in women's sports. The University of Pennsylvania, for example, reached a deal with the administration to remove transgender athletes from its women's athletic programs.

Critics claim the administration's approach will harm transgender students and could weaken protections for victims of sexual violence.

Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women's Law Center, accused the administration of "weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students."

"Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence," Patel said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 14:25

Group To Sue New York Over Union-Backed "Hit-Job" Law

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

A national worker-rights group plans to go to federal court Monday to block a New York law it says was written to silence outreach to public employees about their right to leave their unions. The group argues the new law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech because it allows state government officials to shut down speech before a single word is conveyed.

The Freedom Foundation is set to file its motion in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York asking for a preliminary injunction against the "Section 216" civil service law. Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the measure on Sept. 9. It took effect immediately.

The case sets up a high-stakes test of how far a state can go in policing speech aimed at its own workers. New York contends that the law simply targets fraud. The Freedom Foundation counters that it's a union-backed weapon targeting its highly successful education campaigns to show public sector workers how to cancel their union memberships.

Freedom Foundation CEO Aaron Withe has called the law a "hit job" aimed at ending the free-speech rights of his group. He said it "isn't about protecting anyone" except the unions.

Withe asserts that the law aims to stop the Freedom Foundation's education campaigns after the group's outreach has led to the largest decline in union membership in U.S. history. Some 300,000 people in the last six years have canceled their union membership, he said, and the anti-union messages are continuing to gain traction. If the cancellation trend continues, the Freedom Foundation expects 70,000 people to cancel their union membership this year alone.

"They're paying [an average of] $1,100 a year each, so you're talking about in one year $70 million being taken away from their annual revenues," he told RealClearPolitics. "And of course, most of that is happening in blue states because that's where the public employees are."

On the surface, the New York law purports to bar people and organizations from sending communications that falsely appear to be authorized by a union or union representative. It also gives Democratic Attorney General Letitia James the power to investigate, issue subpoenas, and ask a court to block communications deemed deceptive.

Courts can impose fines of up to $1,000 per violation, including against organizations based outside of New York. The Freedom Foundation says New York's version goes further than a similar Oregon law by giving unions a "private right of action" to sue out-of-state parties.

The Freedom Foundation's request for a preliminary injunction argues that the law gives state attorneys broad powers to investigate, intimidate and stifle speech before it occurs. The group has already halted its New York outreach while the fight plays out. The outcome could shape whether other Democratic-led states adopt similar measures.

Stopping speech before it occurs

At the heart of the challenge is what the Freedom Foundation calls an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech: government action that stops expression before it happens rather than punishing it afterward.

According to the Freedom Foundation's motion, the law "doesn't even afford the Foundation the privilege of being punished after it publishes something." The motion notes that Section 216 lets the attorney general take legal action if she believes someone is "about to engage" in speech that violates the law and seek a court order suppressing that speech before publication.

"The most egregious part of the whole thing is the fact that the new law is imposing prior restraint on our speech," Shella Alcabes, an attorney for the Freedom Foundation, told RCP.

Alcabes said the law lets James review the group's past work and issue investigative subpoenas "all so that she can gather information to determine whether we might somehow in the future violate this law - that's insane."

"That just means that before we've even spoken, our speech can be restricted," she said.

Alcabes also argued the group would be unlikely to lose if it were ever sued for impersonating a union, because its materials go out of their way to make clear who is speaking.

"Everything that we try to do is the opposite of what unions would want to do," she told RCP. "We want to tell everyone we're not a union and we're opposed to what they do."

The danger, she said, lies in the investigative powers the law hands the attorney general.

"In a lawsuit, we [would] never really lose," Alcabes said. "But with an investigation behind closed doors, who knows?"

That argument taps one of the oldest principles in American free-speech law. Since Near v. Minnesota in 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court has treated prior restraints as among the most serious threats to the First Amendment. In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, the court said any such restraint carries a "heavy presumption" against its constitutionality.

The group also says the law's penalties are designed to intimidate. The motion argues that if the Freedom Foundation sent one educational mailer to every public employee in New York, it could face nearly $1.5 billion in sanctions.

The Freedom Foundation says the threat has already worked. It has shut down its outreach to public employees in New York in response to the law. Its motion says Section 216 has chilled the group's labor-rights advocacy.

"The First Amendment does not tolerate laws so clearly calculated to distort public discourse and punish disfavored speakers," the motion states. It asks the court to let the Freedom Foundation resume that advocacy.

A law that makes speech illegal

The Freedom Foundation says the law's real target is obvious: groups like itself that remind government workers of a right the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed eight years ago. In Janus v. AFSCME, the high court held in 2018 that public-sector employees, including public school teachers, cannot be forced to pay union fees. The ruling reasoned that union speech can involve political issues protected by the First Amendment.

The group has mailed and otherwise contacted New York public employees, including teachers, to tell them they can leave their unions and stop paying dues. According to the Freedom Foundation, nearly 7,500 New York public employees have used its materials to cancel their union memberships, including more than 1,400 so far this year.

"It exists because government unions in New York are terrified of an inconvenient fact: When public employees learn they don't have to pay union dues, a lot of them stop," Withe said. "So instead of making their case to their own members, union bosses ran to their friends in the legislature and got them to write a law that makes speech illegal."

"This is an anti-speech law aimed at one kind of speaker," Withe added. He noted that the law "lets Letitia James fine the Freedom Foundation for outreach the state decides 'impersonates' a union."

In his view, the group is simply telling public employees about their right to leave their union and stop paying dues. Withe also warns that the law sets a precedent that should worry people across the political spectrum.

"This is a special interest group that is limiting free speech that they disagree with," he said. "Where does that stop on the left and the right? Today it's targeting talking about union membership. Tomorrow, is it going to be talking about pro-life issues? I mean, where does this end?"

Round two after Oregon

Withe says New York's law was "copied" from an Oregon measure the Freedom Foundation is already fighting, and that the group will "make the same case here." That earlier fight has hit a procedural wall. A federal district court dismissed the Foundation's challenge to the Oregon statute on ripeness grounds, finding no union had yet filed suit, and the Foundation has appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The New York challenge may avoid that problem. By shutting down its New York outreach rather than risk penalties, the group can argue its speech is already being suppressed. It can also point to the law's "about to engage" provision as a threat to speech that has not happened yet.

State defends the law

Hochul's office says the law is about fraud, not free speech.

"Governor Hochul takes fraud of any kind seriously, which is why she signed the legislation prohibiting the false impersonation of union officials to protect workers from being misled by deceptive communications," Hochul spokeswoman Kristin Devoe said in a statement. "Employee organizations and unions play a crucial role in New York's infrastructure as a whole, and the Governor has always championed legislation that supports, protects and uplifts workers across the state."

The law's prime sponsor, Assemblymember Judy Griffin, a Democrat representing Nassau County, has said the bill closes a gap in the law and protects workers from people who knowingly impersonate unions to spread misinformation or interfere with lawful union activity.

Mario Cilento, president of the New York State AFL-CIO, praised the law for "holding individuals accountable for fraudulently claiming to be union representatives."

In court, the state is likely to press that framing and argue that the First Amendment has never protected fraud. States can generally bar people from impersonating others to deceive, and courts have upheld injunctions against speech already shown to be false or misleading.

New York will likely argue that Section 216 reaches only communications meant to trick workers into believing a union sent them. Under that reading, the Freedom Foundation's clearly branded mailers wouldn't be affected. The state may also argue that the law is neutral because it applies to anyone who impersonates a union, not to one group or one viewpoint.

The state may also try to get the case thrown out before a judge reaches the constitutional questions. That is how Oregon won the first round there. New York has not yet brought any enforcement action against the Freedom Foundation. Its lawyers could argue that the group's fears are speculative and that its decision to halt New York outreach was voluntary rather than compelled.

The Freedom Foundation counters that the law's "about to engage" provision and the threat of massive fines are exactly what make its challenge imperative now. It will argue that a speaker shouldn't have to risk financial ruin to find out whether its speech is legal.

Alcabes says the law was clearly written to target the Freedom Foundation even though it hasn't done anything to impersonate unions. In fact, the group's emails and other material it publishes repeatedly use phrases, such as "opt out today," so it's clear they are anti-union.

"At the end of the day, it's the prior restraint that's so scary because we would probably win every lawsuit showing that we don't impersonate unions," she argued.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 13:55

Tesla Patents "Electric Fan Car" Weeks Before Roadster Reveal

The United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded Tesla an "Electric Fan Car" patent less than three weeks before the Tesla Roadster 2.0 reveal.

The USPTO filing illustrates four electric ducted fans positioned side by side in the rear diffuser and states that the system is designed to "increase downforce and reduce drag."

"The achievable speed around corners, and stability during braking, of a road vehicle can often be limited by a measure of downforce, or vertical downward force, available on the vehicle. Downforce can help improve grip around corners and stability during braking. Therefore, a vehicle can achieve increased speed through corners and better stability during deceleration with an improved means of creating downforce," the filing continued.

The filing also describes the new system as driver-activated or, in some configurations, automatically controlled.

Last month, a report said the redesigned Roadster would have limited "flying" capabilities.

EV blog Electrek pointed out, "Somebody at Tesla was clearly working on a track-focused Model S in 2023. That car is dead, and the idea has nowhere to go but the Roadster. Between this, last year's skirt

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 13:35

5 Takeaways From The New US-China Tariff-Relief Product Lists

Authored by Arthur Zhang via The Epoch Times,

The United States and China have released product lists covering about $30 billion in imports in each direction that could receive lower tariffs under an agreement reached after Chinese leader Xi Jinping's visit to Washington.

The lists cover 77 categories of Chinese goods entering the United States and 1,619 categories of U.S. goods entering China.

Here are five takeaways from the agreement.

Limited Category of Trade Covered

The arrangement covers goods the two countries have designated as "non-sensitive," totaling about $60 billion in two-way trade based on 2024 values.

The U.S. list includes toys, fireworks, blankets, tableware, artificial flowers, child safety seats, and holiday decorations. China's list includes agricultural products, seafood, timber, personal-care products, medical equipment, and coal.

Products outside the two approved lists are not covered by this tariff-reduction arrangement.

A Work in Progress

Publication of the lists does not itself lower tariffs.

The two sides have approved the product lists, but future tariff reductions must still go through each country's domestic legal procedures.

China's Commerce Ministry said on Sept. 28 that the two governments would implement the reductions simultaneously after completing those procedures.

No effective date has been announced.

US Commercial Soybeans Excluded

China's list includes a wide range of U.S. agricultural products, including wheat, corn, sorghum, meat, seafood, and dairy products.

Ordinary commercial soybeans are not on the list.

It does include soybeans specifically for cultivation, as well as soybean oil, soybean meal, and some other soybean-derived products.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sept. 23 that Beijing had met its soybean-purchase commitment for this year but was behind schedule on purchases of other U.S. agricultural products.

'Most-Favored-Nation' Rate for Most Covered Goods

China's Commerce Ministry said more than 90 percent of the products covered by the arrangement would have the additional tariffs imposed by the two sides removed.

Those goods would instead face each country's standard tariff rate, known in international trade as the "most-favored-nation" rate.

Trade Truce Extended by 2 Months

The product-list arrangement does not settle the broader U.S.-China trade dispute.

The two countries separately extended their existing trade truce by two months, moving its expiration from Nov. 10 to Jan. 10.

Bessent said on Sept. 23 that he was unsure whether the two sides could reach a broader agreement. He said Chinese negotiators had proposed a larger deal and that Washington was open either to continuing the existing arrangement or examining a broader one.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 13:20

IEA's Birol Says "Ready To Act" If Energy Shock Worsens As US Offers 40 Million-Barrel SPR Lifeline

Summary: 

• US DoE Offers 40 Million Barrels From SPR 
• IEA Head Says SPR On Standby If Energy Crisis Deepens 
• EU Eyes Methane Rule Retreat As Energy Crisis Deepens; IEA Floats Another Emergency Oil Dump

IEA Head "Ready To Act"; US DoE Offers 40 Million Barrels From SPR

Brent crude futures moved lower to $103.90 a barrel, supported by continued diplomatic efforts and the resumption of flows through Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline. Kpler data from the weekend showed that oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz reached 13 million barrels a day, about two-thirds of the prewar level.

 Courtesy of Commodity Context ... 

Speaking to reporters at a meeting of EU energy ministers in Dublin, IEA head Fatih Birol said another emergency SPR dump remains on standby should the energy crisis become "much bigger" and more prolonged.

Birol said one-third of the 400 million-barrel release announced in March, shortly after the US-Iran conflict erupted, has yet to hit the market. He said around 80% of overall stocks remain available.

"If there is a need, and if our member countries do agree with it, we are ready to act in order to address current and future market challenges," he said.

A separate Bloomberg News report said the US Energy Department requested an exchange of up to 40 million barrels of oil from the SPR. The release is part of a much larger plan to dump 172 million barrels of oil from the SPR onto the market to tame crude prices amid supply disruptions at the Hormuz chokepoint.

Such a drawdown would put the SPR at levels not seen since the early 1980s. The current level stands at around 285 million barrels.

Goldman Energy analyst Nikhil Bhandari warned last week that an ongoing global refining crisis could strain the fuel market well into 2027 (read the report). 

EU Eyes Methane Rule Retreat As Energy Crisis Deepens; IEA Floats Another Emergency Oil Dump

The European Union is considering postponing methane emissions requirements for imported oil and gas to help boost energy supplies, with the Northern Hemisphere winter just months away. Energy prices in the bloc are already soaring, and uncomfortably low supplies of diesel and natural gas could push them even higher. The energy-stricken continent faces a difficult balancing act as it fights for its energy security.

Reuters quoted EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen as saying the bloc could delay the methane emissions provisions by a year, which are scheduled to take effect at the start of next year. The rules require foreign producers supplying Europe to monitor and report methane emissions. 

The big concern is that compliance risks and potential penalties could discourage suppliers from sending fuel to Europe just as governments panic-search to secure winter supplies. Disruptions linked to the war in Ukraine and Iran have disrupted supplies of avaiable crude and crude products. 

"I have instructed my services... to look into possibilities of postponing the part that has to do with imports," Jorgensen told reporters at a meeting of EU energy ministers in Dublin.

The potential withdrawal of the new methane emissions rule comes as the International Energy Agency weighs another strategic oil reserves dump to cap crude oil prices from rising further - just as China re-enters. 

"We are following the markets very closely, especially the product markets, diesel and others. If there is a need, of course, we will discuss with our member governments to take the necessary steps," IEA head Fatih Birol told reporters in Dublin ahead of a meeting of EU energy ministers.

Fatih Birol

UBS markets analyst Nana Antiedu commented earlier today on the ongoing disruption to the global refining market: 

Since the July update, UBS Evidence Lab's refining project tracker shows disruptions across global refining have intensified, driven by the Strait of Hormuz situation and further attacks on Russian refineries. 

Around 11% of global refining capacity was offline during August, typically the lightest month of the year for maintenance. European refining margins set a new all-time high at $50/bbl. As the industry enters the autumn maintenance season, energy analyst Anna Kishmariya estimates offline capacity should remain above 11Mb/d through at least October, absent a recovery in Middle Eastern product flows. 

She raises the estimate of capacity requiring repairs exceeding two months to about 2.3Mb/d. The key focus remains the potential US product export ban. Given US exports account for over 20% of the global diesel export market, Anna does not believe the market could absorb another major supply disruption. While not her base case, this remains the key upside risk to margins.

Brent prices reversed earlier amid conflicting messaging on US-Iran negotiations, continued flows through the Hormuz chokepoint and renewed flows through Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline. Recall last week that Goldman warned a global refining nightmare could extend well into 2027 (read report). 

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 12:50

Trump Asks Supreme Court To Restore Restrictions On Transgender Inmate Treatments

Authored by AG News Staff via American Greatness,

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow the Bureau of Prisons to enforce restrictions on medical interventions and social accommodations for transgender federal inmates while a legal challenge continues.

The Justice Department's emergency request follows a lower court order blocking the policy for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Under the Bureau of Prisons policy, inmates would continue to have access to mental health services, but the government would not provide hormone therapy, surgeries or accommodations such as chest binders, wigs and breast padding.

The legal fight began after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Bureau of Prisons to revise its policies and prohibit federal funds from being spent on medical procedures, treatments or drugs intended to make an inmate's appearance conform to the opposite sex.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the new Bureau of Prisons policy in June, finding in part that it had been "reverse engineered" to carry out Trump's executive order. Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing previously available treatments to affected inmates.

The Justice Department appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined earlier this month to let the administration enforce the policy while the case proceeds.

The administration is now asking the Supreme Court to intervene.

In its emergency filing, the Justice Department accused the district court of "substituting its own policy judgment for that of the agency."

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that prison officials determined the restrictions were "necessary to maintain institutional security" and said the lower court's ruling prevents the executive branch from carrying out its chosen policy.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 12:45

Jefferies Beats On Record Stock Trading, But Asset Management Revenue Plunges 50% On First Brands, Radiant "Cockroaches"

Jefferies is once again the first major Wall Street firm to report its quarter, and once again the story is of two very different banks under one roof: a trading and banking franchise running near record highs, and an asset-management arm that keeps finding new ways to lose money on receivables that may or may not exist.

The good news first. In the fiscal third quarter ended August 31, Jefferies reported EPS of $1.08, beating the $1.00 consensus (core EPS of $1.08 also beat Goldman's $1.03 and the Street's $1.01). Core pre-tax income came in 9% ahead of the Street, driven by:

• Equities trading: $626 million, up 29% YoY and a record, helped by cash, electronic trading and prime services (i.e., hedge funds levering up into the AI melt-up).
• Investment banking: $1.3 billion, up 17%, with advisory up 25% (also a record) and equity underwriting up 69%.
• Fixed income trading: the laggard, with net revenue down 26% in what the bank called a sluggish market.

And then there's the asset-management unit, where net revenue fell to $85.6 million from almost $177 million a year earlier. That's a 52% drop, and it comes from the same two names that have been following Jefferies around for a year: First Brands and Radiant World, both held through Leucadia Asset Management's Point Bonita trade-finance fund.

The stock fell 1.1% in early trading, taking the YTD decline past 25%. That is a strange reaction to a record quarter, unless you remember how the last twelve months have gone.

Goldman: Buy... with a 15% lower price target

Goldman's James Yaro headlined his overnight note "Equities trading and expense beat, outlook and momentum remain largely the same." That is sell-side for "fine, nothing to see here," and Goldman does expect "a slightly constructive response to results." Look closer, though, and the note is a good deal less relaxed than the title.

First, the good parts, per Goldman:

• Equities: A second consecutive record at $626MM, 10%/14% ahead of GSe/Street, "with strength across all products, especially in prime."
• Advisory: Record quarterly revenue, "in part driven by a sponsor recovery, as well as broad-based share gains across sectors."
• Margins: A core pre-tax margin of 15.8%, about 150bps above consensus, thanks to a non-comp ratio about 145bps below the Street.
• Buybacks: 1.3MM shares repurchased in the quarter.

Now the less good parts, starting with the quality of the beat:

• The banking beat is the volatile kind. It "was primarily driven by other investment banking ($31mn vs. GSe/consensus at $5mn/11mn), the most volatile of JEF's IBanking business." Underwriting actually missed by 3%. ECM came in 4% short of the Street, even while growing 69% YoY, so expectations were running even hotter than the deal flow.
• Some of the expense discipline is really just shrinkage. A portion "likely relates to merchant banking wind-downs, which appear to have been larger than anticipated in terms of both revenue and expenses." Jefferies is spending less partly because there is less business left to spend on.
• FICC missed badly: 18% below the Street and 15% below Goldman.

And then there is asset management, where the headline number actually understates the damage. Strip out merchant banking and Jefferies' core asset-management revenue was just $13 million, against Goldman's $38MM estimate and the Street's $36MM. That's a 66%/64% miss, "primarily driven by lower investment returns." In response, Goldman cut its 2026E/27E/28E asset management revenue by 22%/11%/6%.

Goldman's rating is still Buy, but look at what it did to valuation. The bank (full report here) cut its target multiple by 2.5x to 11.0x and its 12-month price target by ~15%, from $67 to $57, even as its 2026 EPS estimate rose 2%. It also offered a telling explanation for the stock's persistent discount: "we believe that the market discounts the multiples assigned to these businesses, given their volatility." Put simply, even when Jefferies beats, investors won't pay up for the kinds of earnings it produces.

The chart in the Goldman note shows the result: JEF is down 29.4% over twelve months, and 39.4% behind the S&P 500. The stock peaked just as First Brands was about to blow up and has spent the year since trailing the market.

Vital Knowledge's Adam Crisafulli gave the quarter a fitting grade: "Not amazing, not horrible." He also questioned how long the equities boom can last, which is a reasonable question when the entire Street is printing record equities revenue on the same trade.

The wider read-across is positive for the rest of the Street's equity desks. BofA's Brian Moynihan said earlier this month that equity trading was up in the quarter through mid-September, and Goldman's David Solomon said equities remained "very strong." In FICC, BofA warned that revenue was down and "bouncing around," and Jefferies' -26% suggests that was an understatement.

The cockroach problem

Management kept the upbeat tone. CEO Rich Handler and President Brian Friedman said they "remain confident in the long-term outlook" for asset management as they "reposition the platform by reducing capital allocated to certain existing funds." In other words, Point Bonita is being wound down. The plan is to put the capital into Hildene, the credit manager Jefferies agreed in December 2025 to buy 50% of, alongside Hildene's $550 million purchase of annuity writer SILAC. Replacing a trade-finance fund that blew up on receivables with a credit shop that owns an insurer is one way to diversify, at least.

As a reminder of how we got here:

• First Brands. When the auto-parts roll-up collapsed into bankruptcy in the fall of 2025, it turned out that Point Bonita, which once managed roughly $3 billion, had about a quarter of its assets tied to First Brands receivables (around $715 million, per Jefferies' own October 2025 update). The DOJ then opened a probe into what we called First Brands' "shocking bankruptcy" (Oct 2025). A week later, Jamie Dimon's "when you see one cockroach, there are probably more" line became the market's official slogan, and JEF crashed more than 10% in a single session as regional banks crashed as more credit "cockroaches" emerged (Oct 16, 2025).
   
• Market Financial Solutions. Then, in February, Jefferies was again scrambling to recover what it could (Feb 27, 2026) after the collapse of UK bridging lender MFS, where we noted that "Banco Santander and Jefferies – both of which sank in the First Brands swamp" were once more in the line of fire.

Here We Go Again: Billions Vaporized In Spectacular Private Credit Collapse https://t.co/y5jPVUmrOT

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 27, 2026

• Radiant World. This is the latest one, and it is the ugliest. Radiant is a Singapore iron-ore trader that bought receivables from counterparties like Glencore and Vitol and financed them through banks and funds, including - drumroll - Point Bonita. In August, Hedgeweek reported that payments to the fund had "slowed," and several commodity houses stopped trading with Radiant over questions about its invoices. Jefferies was said to believe the underlying trades "remain legitimate."

That view lasted about a month. Since then:

• Sep 5: Jefferies' LAM Trade Finance fund won a UK freezing order against Radiant, founder Pinkesh Nahar, and affiliate Sapphire Minmetals. Parallel orders followed in Hong Kong and Singapore.
• Sep 8-9: The fund formally accused Radiant of fraud in a $500 million claim, alleging the iron-ore receivables "either did not exist or were not validly assigned."
• Sep 17: Radiant disclosed that it had about $10,000 in cash, compared with audited financials showing more than $200 million. Somewhere, an auditor is updating their LinkedIn.
• Sep 19: Radiant sued Glencore for $2 billion in Singapore, which is an interesting move for a company with $10K in the bank. Glencore has reportedly already taken a $480 million provision and told Mizuho that Radiant sent it a fake Glencore email about repaying a $95.5 million loan.
• Sep 24-25: KPMG was appointed interim judicial manager, a Singapore judge questioned Radiant's claimed $1 billion of receivables, and Bloomberg reported that Singapore police had received a fraud report months before the crisis, with Intesa Sanpaolo apparently suspicious of the invoices before anyone else.

Then there is the question of how much Jefferies actually has at risk. Bloomberg has put Jefferies' exposure at "less than $300 million." But according to a creditor schedule the founder submitted to the court, Jefferies is Radiant's largest creditor at $353 million, well ahead of Intesa ($238MM), Deutsche Bank ($103MM) and Mizuho ($97MM), out of $870 million total. The fraud claim filed by the fund is for $500 million. Pick a number.

Bottom line

For the rest of the Street, the Jefferies print is good news: equities are booming, the ECM window is wide open, advisory is at records, and backlogs are "broad and strong" ("very optimistic about the balance of 2026 and our momentum heading into 2027," per Handler and Friedman). JPM's Market Intel desk, which this morning went back to "Tactically Bullish," said that outside of AI plays it favors banks, given "the growth reboot, potentially steeper yield curve, and favorable capital markets outlook."

For Jefferies itself, the market is saying something different. The stock is down more than 25% YTD and nearly 30% over twelve months despite record trading and advisory. Goldman's Buy rating now sits on a price target 15% lower and on a multiple that assumes investors will keep charging a volatility discount. Goldman even lists "a much longer timeframe to wind down the merchant bank" among its downside risks.

After First Brands, MFS, and now an iron-ore trader with $10,000 in its account and a fake Glencore email, the market isn't asking whether there are more cockroaches. It's asking where the next one is.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2026 - 12:30