International Energy Agency Policies Hurt Africans

Authored by Brenda Shaffer via RealClearWire,

One of the most important developments this century has been a major increase in energy access across the globe: Billions of people have gained access to modern energy, a precondition for rising from poverty.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region of the world not benefiting from this transformation. In Africa, energy poverty is growing. For the first time since World War II, access to electricity is also backsliding in Africa.

Over the past year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has sought to address Africa’s rising energy poverty, through organizing conferences and publishing reports. The IEA and global leaders gathered in conferences in Africa. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation was a major funder of the endeavor. Yet, the IEA did not offer any practical solution to address the rising energy poverty in Africa because it is unable to utter the essential words: fossil fuels.

In fact, through its promotion of cutting loans and investments in fossil fuels in Africa, the IEA itself contributed to the decline in energy access in Africa. The IEA’s promotion of “Net-Zero” served as the basis of decisions in recent years by the G7, World Bank, and United Nations to cut funding and investments in fossil fuels and production of electricity from fossil fuels in Africa.

The idea behind denying investments and funding for fossil fuels was that it would force Africans to adopt renewable energy. However, reducing access to fossil fuels did not lower pollution and emissions. In fact, the lack of access to stable and affordable electricity produced from fossil fuels, has led to increased pollution, emissions, and premature deaths in Africa, as Africans turn to burning dung, wood, lump coal, and other biomass for cooking and other basic energy functions.

The IEA acknowledged in its recently published report “Universal Access to Clean Cooking in Africa” that burning traditional biomass releases more carbon emissions than using fossil fuels.

Despite this acknowledgment that the path to lower emissions and pollution—improving public health—is through fossil fuels, the IEA isn’t willing to say the plain truth: Africa needs fossil fuels. For the IEA, like so many multilateral institutions, energy policy has become a cult in which fossil fuels are sacrilegious.

The new IEA report on Africa numbers 151 pages and probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to compile, yet it doesn’t give any reasonable path for Africa to increase energy access. The report points to the transformation of China, Indonesia, and India in energy access over recent decades as models for Africa. However, the IEA neglects to point out that those three countries benefitted from access to coal and to government and multilateral funding to develop electricity produced from fossil fuels. Yet, Africa is denied funding and investments to develop its fossil fuel resources.

In the report, the IEA sets South Africa apart as an example of a place where modern energy access is growing and the number of homes reliant on burning biomass is decreasing, in contrast to countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

The IEA, however, neglects to point out that South Africa has succeeded in expanding modern energy access by developing and burning its domestic coal reserves. Coal provides 69 percent of South Africa’s energy consumption and is the source of 82 percent of its electricity production.

In the report, the IEA acknowledges that liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity are necessary to replace the use of traditional biomass. Yet, it still advocates blocking Africa from developing its own fossil fuel resources. According to the IEA report, imported LPG and natural gas can replace traditional biomass, but not local energy resources.

What is the IEA’s answer as to how Africa will pay for that imported fuel and finance new cooking stoves? The IEA suggests that Africa sell carbon credits to fund the transition from burning wood and dung to using LPG and electricity. However, it is highly unlikely that enough revenue from carbon credits could be generated to finance a move from dung and wood—which is collected for free—to pay for stoves, LPG, and electricity. Moreover, this would increase Africa’s dependence on handouts from abroad, instead of strengthening local economies.

The answer to Africa’s energy poverty is development of the continent’s oil, gas, and coal resources. Profits and taxes from the development could be used to expand LPG and electricity access in Africa. Paradoxically, as the IEA acknowledges, developing fossil fuels and producing electricity from them would lower emissions, pollution, and premature deaths in Africa.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently stated that the Trump administration is evaluating whether the United States should withdraw its membership from the IEA or attempt to reform the organization. The administration claims that the IEA has strayed from its mission of promoting energy security. Instead, the IEA has become another one of the dozens of major climate policy advocacy organizations. In his evaluation of the IEA, Wright should add the IEA’s role in increasing energy poverty in Africa and its use of public funding on projects that do not benefit Africans.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/09/2025 - 09:20

The Era Of Online Age Checks Is Here - How Does It Work?

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Laws demanding internet users provide proof of age are sprouting up around the world.

In the United States, at least 24 states have already passed laws requiring pornography sites to verify users’ ages, according to the Age Verification Providers Association.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock

A handful of countries, including Germany, France, Australia, and Ireland, have implemented age verification to access specified content, from social media access to pornography.

At the end of July, the UK rolled out the most comprehensive national system so far.

How does age verification work in practice? What are the loopholes? And how might it reshape the internet? Here’s what the experts say.

How Age Checks Work in Practice

Age‑verification systems range from uploading a photo of an identification such as a driver’s license to advanced biometric scans.

The Age Verification Providers Association lists several approved methods for age checks, including mobile phone account verification, credit database matching, transactional records, and digital ID apps.

Some platforms ask users to upload a government‑issued ID, while others rely on mobile phone account data, banking or credit records, or digital ID apps to confirm age.

Increasingly, sites are turning to biometric solutions, such as facial analysis that estimates age from a selfie or a brief movement check.

Reddit, for example, uses the third‑party service Persona to verify either an ID or a live selfie, while Discord relies on k‑ID, which confirms age by analyzing facial movements. X combines internal account signals with optional ID checks.

Porn sites like Pornhub offer a mix of options, such as requiring a photo ID or running a credit card check before users can view sexually explicit material.

The Next 24 Months

Mary Ann Miller, vice president and fraud adviser at Prove, a digital identity verification platform, said that age verification will become more standard and required over the next 24 months.

Miller said that simpler methods include uploading a government-issued ID that is sometimes checked for authenticity or a selfie taken to ensure identity accuracy and that the person is alive.

“Other methods use solutions that leverage technology that uses the phone as a proxy for our identity since we have them with us ‘all the time’ and determine the assurance and trust of the person presenting information or attesting their age or attesting for a child’s age as part of parental consent,” she told The Epoch Times by email.

The home page of Pornhub displays a suspension notice in France due to age-verification requirements, in Valence, France, on June 4, 2025. Countries worldwide, including dozens of U.S. states, have implemented age checks for access to certain websites and social media platforms. Nicolas Guyonnet/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

“Other methods include age estimation from facial recognition or other data sources.”

In terms of which methods are most reliable, Miller pointed to those that “can use passive techniques to determine identity assurance first, then age verification as part of an identity flow.”

Passive identity assurance techniques verify a user’s identity without requiring the user to actively perform actions—such as entering a password or scanning a fingerprint—by using data already available to infer age, including credit cards, IP addresses, or other information.

Businesses in the near future will have to overhaul their age‑verification systems to meet stricter standards, rather than relying on low‑accuracy or patchwork identity checks.

“What has taken many businesses by surprise is that when they try to apply age verification with low-accuracy identity checks or the absence of identity checks, they have to ‘go back to the drawing board’ on both aspects,” she said.

The Push for Biometric Verification

Biometric age estimation can be conducted using facial analysis.

Other methods include voice blueprints, gestures, and keystrokes (how you type). These methods are currently less well-developed than facial analysis but are progressing quickly.

Derek Jackson, chief operations officer and cofounder of Cyber Dive, a tech company founded with the mission of keeping children safe online, told The Epoch Times by email that facial biometrics are “newer but catching on quickly.”

“They estimate your age by analyzing your facial features, cheekbones, eye spacing, skin tone, in real time,“ Jackson said. ”Voice biometrics and keystroke patterns are even newer. They try to match your unique patterns, your voice pitch, how fast or slow you type to known age profiles.”

He said that facial recognition is growing quickly because “it’s simple, fast, and surprisingly effective.”

A GovTech staff member demonstrates facial verification to access government services at a community center in Singapore on Oct. 1, 2020. As age-verification rules expand, some sites are using biometric tools like selfie-based age analysis in addition to government-issued IDs, bank or credit records, or digital ID apps. Martin Abbugao/AFP via Getty Images Privacy Risks and Skepticism

Users remain wary about sharing personal data online, especially government IDs or biometrics.

Denis Vyazovoy, chief product officer of AdGuard VPN, said that some platforms attempt to be more privacy-aware by, for example, not permanently storing selfies or ID documents or keeping data for just seven days.

“But even with such reassurances, trust is low,” he told The Epoch Times by email.

“Even though platforms claim that facial data or ID scans are not stored long-term, people remain wary, and rightfully so. The truth is, any method that requires biometric data, government ID, or sensitive financial information introduces serious privacy risks.”

The UK’s New Law

The UK’s Online Safety Act does not mandate a single method of age verification. The UK’s tech regulator Ofcom, which is in charge of policing the law, just requires companies to implement highly effective age assurances.

The law focuses on keeping under‑18s out of adult spaces but does not tell companies how to achieve this goal, leaving firms to choose their own verification systems as long as they are “highly effective.”

But failure to implement a system can result in financial penalties of up to 10 percent of a service’s qualifying worldwide revenue, or 18 million pounds ($23.9 million), whichever is greater. The Online Safety Act is a UK-specific law, but it affects U.S. and global companies with no legal presence in the country.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/09/2025 - 08:10

Germany Halts Arms Exports To Israel As World Reacts To Gaza Conquest Plan

Netanyahu's security cabinet has approved a plan to takeover the whole of the Gaza Strip, including intense operations in Gaza city, resulting in outrage among some European capitals, who see this as doubling down on the carnage which has left over 60,000 Palestinians dead, based on Gaza health sources.

Germany has announced itself as the latest European nation to suspend its arms exports to Israel, noting that these could be used in human rights violations and potential war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Berlin backs the anti-Hamas fight, however.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz made clear as Israel's military is poised to take over Gaza city his government will not approve or transfer any exports of military equipment to Israel that could be used in Gaza until further notice.

Via Reuters

Merz says it was "increasingly difficult to understand" how the Israeli military plan could achieve its war aims in a legitimate way, adding:

"Under these circumstances, the German government will not authorise any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice."

The German arms industry has historically been among the globe's largest arms suppliers to Israel. Of course, the US has long been far and away the biggist supplier of arms, and under Trump this doesn't look to cease - with Germany coming in second, according to global monitors, over the last half-decade.

"Israel has the right to defend itself against the terror of Hamas," Merz continued in his statement. "The release of the hostages and determined negotiations on a ceasefire are our top priority. The disarmament of Hamas is essential. Hamas must not play a role in the future of Gaza."

But apparently Merz vehemently disagress with the practical how in terms of the methods whereby this is accomplished. Global critics have said Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing and ultimately plans to annex the strip.

PM Netanyahu has sought to deflect this criticism by saying Israel will conquer the whole enclave, but that it doesn't ultimatley want to govern it. This vaguely suggests it could be handed over to an entity like the Palestinian Authority (PA) one day, but likely this would be done (or not done at all) by a future Israeli government.

Shekel Falls After Cabinet Approves Plan to Seize Gaza City--Bloomberg

Meanwhile other major powers like China are raising the alarm over Israel's takeover plan, with China on Friday expressing "serious concerns" over the move on Gaza City, urging it to "immediately cease its dangerous actions."

Now its getting real.

Germany going beyond statements and blocking weapons exports to Israel.

Source: Bundesregierung
https://t.co/rGTCNkDLzd pic.twitter.com/J8frsDOA9R

— Latika M Bourke (@latikambourke) August 8, 2025

"Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people and is an inseparable part of Palestinian territory," a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson told the AFP. "The correct way to ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and to secure the release of hostages is an immediate ceasefire."

“A complete resolution to the Gaza conflict hinges on a ceasefire; only then can a path to de-escalation be paved and regional security ensured," the Chinese government statement said. Beijing is "willing to work together with the international community to help end the fighting in Gaza as soon as possible," it added.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/09/2025 - 07:35

Trump-Brokered Armenia–Azerbaijan Peace Deal Secures US Trade Route

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump will host the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan on Aug. 8 at the White House to sign a joint declaration ending four decades of hostility between the two nations.

The accord also launches the “Trump Route,” a new transport corridor aimed at unlocking the region’s commercial potential, the White House said.

During the meeting, the two countries will sign a joint declaration formalizing the agreement and establishing the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” or TRIPP, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told reporters during a call previewing the meeting.

“By locking in this path to peace, we are unlocking the great potential of the South Caucasus region in trade, transit, and energy flows,” Kelly said.

Trump will also sign bilateral agreements with both countries that “span energy, technology, economic cooperation, border security, infrastructure, and trade,” she added.

The new route will be a multimodal transit corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, enhancing regional trade routes.

The new route will allow goods to be moved from not just the Caucasus but also Central Asia without transiting through Russia, Iran, or China, according to the White House.

“What President Trump has done is he’s taken the politics out of the picture and made common sense prevail,” a senior White House official said during the call.

“What this will do for American businesses, and frankly, for energy resources across Europe, will be enormously powerful.

“The losers here are China, Russia, and Iran. The winners here are the West.”

Azerbaijan has long sought a transport corridor through Armenia to connect its main territory with Nakhchivan bordering Turkey. Under the agreement to be signed on Friday, Armenia will grant the United States exclusive long-term development rights to build a route through the southern part of Armenia.

The U.S. government plans to delegate the project to a consortium to handle both infrastructure and management.

The official said that Trump is going to sign on Aug. 8 a directive to “set up a TRIPP negotiating team” with talks expected to start “in the middle of next week.”

The official noted that since the announcement yesterday morning, they had received calls from nine potential operators, including three American companies.

“We’re going to get everybody around the table. We’re going to find the most first-class operating system,” the official said.

In a Truth Social post on Aug. 7, Trump announced that he'd be hosting Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan for a “Historic Peace Summit” at the White House on Friday.

“These two Nations have been at War for many years, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Many Leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now,” Trump said, adding that his administration has been “engaged with both sides for quite some time.”

The two nations have engaged in cross-border conflicts since the late 1980s.

Early this year, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff traveled to Azerbaijan and met with Aliyev. From February through mid-April, U.S. officials expressed significant concern about the potential for renewed hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Following Witkoff’s trip, a U.S. team conducted a series of five additional visits to the region, traveling between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

During the meeting, the countries will also sign a joint letter officially requesting the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, to dissolve the “no longer relevant Minsk Group,” according to the White House.

The group, co-chaired by France, Russia, and the United States, was created in 1992 to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno–Karabakh conflict.

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/09/2025 - 07:00

Hemispheric Defense: Trump Directs Military For Kinetic Ops Against Foreign Drug Cartels

Per The New York Times reporting, President Trump has issued a new directive authorizing the Department of Defense (DoD) to conduct direct military operations against select Latin American drug cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). This represents a major escalation in the administration's counter-cartel posture, moving beyond law enforcement and intelligence support to offensive kinetic missions. 

The directive, according to people familiar with the matter, provides legal cover for potential direct U.S. military operations at sea and on foreign soil, bypassing the traditional law enforcement framework.

"It signals Mr. Trump's continued willingness to use military forces to carry out what has primarily been considered a law enforcement responsibility to curb the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs," The New York Times wrote in the report. 

The move follows the deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops along the southern border, expanding surveillance via reconnaissance aircraft, and designating multiple cartels and gangs as FTOs, including Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles, which the administration alleges is run by Nicolás Maduro. On Thursday, the U.S. increased its bounty on Maduro's capture to $50 million. 

Recently, the Treasury Department accused Cartel de los Soles of providing material support to Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. Both cartels have been designated as FTOs, which the Treasury said are "threatening the peace and security of the United States."

Trump administration lawyers, including the new Pentagon general counsel and head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, are expected to face early tests in determining what operations are legally permissible. 

NYT noted, "Trump's new directive appears to envision a different approach, focused on U.S. forces directly capturing or killing people involved in the drug trade." 

Earlier this year, we provided readers with the understanding that the groundwork was being laid for these types of authorizations, including capture/kill missions, maritime interdictions, and cross-border SOF raids against high-value targets: 

• USAF Spy Plane Runs SIGINT Operation Near Cabo As U.S. Preps For Potential Cartel Fight

• USAF Spy Jet Flies Second SIGINT Operation On US Border With Focus On Narco Hub

• Border Czar "Expects" Kinetic Warfare Between U.S. Troops & Mexican Drug Cartels

• U.S. Designates Mexican Cartels As "Foreign Terrorists," Signaling Financial Warfare Looms

• US P-3B Orion Spy Plane Spotted Over Mexico As SIGINT Ops Target Cartels

• U.S. Special Forces Deploy To Mexico For "Training" Mission Following Spy Plane SIGINT Operations

• Trump Weighs Drone Strikes On Mexican Cartel Terrorists Amid Major Hemispheric Defense Push

• Trump Mulls Deploying Special Forces To Assassinate Mexican Drug Lords: Report

• Former Green Beret: Trump Can "Turn Loose Delta Force" On The Cartels

Trump's target of cartels is an initiative that appears nested within a broader strategic framework referred to as "Hemispheric Defense," aimed at securing the Western Hemisphere against transnational criminal gangs and Beijing. 

The primary objective will be to fracture cartel command-and-control nodes to disrupt fentanyl trafficking networks, particularly those dependent on precursor chemical shipments originating from China (hybrid warfare) that kill 100,000 Americans every year. It's likely that before the kinetic action begins, the U.S. Treasury will exert more financial pressure on these cartels to disrupt their financial networks. 

Source: Heritage Foundation

If implemented, this directive marks a major doctrinal shift for the U.S. to secure the Western Hemisphere in a world fracturing into a dangerous bipolar state. There are risks that this action could spark diplomatic fallout with Mexico and other surrounding countries.

Another risk is that cartels may retaliate with asymmetric attacks targeting U.S. personnel, diplomatic buildings, or infrastructure. What's worse is that the Biden-Harris regime of far-left globalists flooded the nation with cartel members. There is a coming storm. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 08/09/2025 - 06:00

The Government Is Not Your Friend

Authored by 'Shinobi' via BitcoinMagazine.com,

This week’s guilty verdict for Roman Storm on the count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money service business is absolutely insane. 

FinCEN, the regulator responsible for licensing, monitoring, and enforcement actions concerning criminal activity in money transmission has itself explicitly stated that self-custodial tooling that facilitates the transmission of value using cryptocurrencies are not money transmitters and are not subject to the relevant regulations.

So, how did we get here? Eight months after the election of a president who describes himself as a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency advocate, after the Department of Justice themselves have explicitly stated that they are not going to engage in regulation by prosecution, or prosecute mixing services, how was Roman Storm found guilty?

There is nothing to describe this situation except pure, unbridled insanity. Incoherence. Hypocrisy and contradiction. There is a lesson here, though, one that I think it’s time more people in this space learn. 

The government’s word is worthless. It means nothing. 

They will continue cracking down on privacy, they will continue pushing KYC surveillance through things like the GENIUS Act and through the backdoor, applying them to just stablecoins (for now). They will continue treating the desire for privacy as evidence of criminal intent. They will do all these things while talking out of the other side of their mouth about supporting Bitcoiners and the “importance of self custody.” 

This is what the government does. This is what politicians do. It is inherent in their very nature. 

We need to stop treating these people as our friends. We need to stop pretending and lying to ourselves that they can be won over and become powerful allies to push the values and tools that we wish to see in the world. They are not our friends. They will not become allies, sharing a common cause with us. They are our enemies. 

It is time to stop pretending. These people must be treated as hostile, and dealt with as such. 

We need to stop begging them for clauses and riders in bills. We need to take them to court. We need to stop kissing their ass and pandering to their egos and notion of public persona. We need to call them out as the two-faced spineless people they are. 

If there is any legitimacy whatsoever to the legal foundations of the United States government, we do not need new laws, we do not need these people’s permission — we have the Constitution. Remind them of that in court. 

If, at the end of all of that, this system is so corrupt and hypocritical that it functionally ignores the constitutional rights of Americans (and non-Americans), then we need to ignore them.

Civil disobedience is the last mechanism we have to hold the government accountable to the foundational constraints they are built upon short of violence. It is time to use it. 

Free human beings do not ask for their freedom; they take it. In a digital age creeping ever closer to Orwellian totalitarianism, that is the only way you will ever attain it.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 23:25

These Are The World's Most (And Least) Powerful Passports

Singapore has the most powerful passport in the world, with its citizens able to visit 193 countries and territories without a prior visa, according to the Henley Passport Index.

Japan and South Korea come in second place, with its citizens able to visit 190 countries, followed by EU countries Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and Spain in joint third, with access to 189 countries.

As Statista's Anna Fleck reports, even though the United States is a little further down the list, coming in 10th place, it still yields considerable power, enabling citizens to enter 182 countries without major restrictions. It’s a level of freedom also enjoyed by passport holders in Lithuania and Iceland.

You will find more infographics at Statista

At the other end of the scale, the situation is very different.

For passport holders in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, for example, travel is much more restrictive.

The Afghan passport wields the least power of the ranking, with just 25 destinations permissible visa-free. The situation in Syria and Iraq isn’t much better, at 27 and 30 destinations, respectively.

The Henley Passport Index draws from data from the International Air Transport Authority (IATA), including 199 different passports and 227 different travel destinations.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 23:00

Three Years Later, The American People Deserve The Truth About Mar-a-Lago Raid

Authored by Julie Kelly via declassified.live,

No photo other than his mugshot is more representative of the unprecedented lawfare against Donald Trump than the photo of alleged classified documents discovered during the nine-hour armed raid of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022.

On one hand, Democrats, the news media, and even some NeverTrumpers (clears throat, side-eyes National Review) believed the iconic picture proved Trump had absconded with secret government records and carelessly left them around his Palm Beach mansion, endangering national security.

Trump supporters, on the other hand, viewed the photo with disgust, a reminder of just how far the Biden regime and his FBI would go to finally put Trump in handcuffs.

But nearly two years later, the same Department of Justice that added the picture to a 2022 court filing for the sole purpose of ginning up media coverage, which worked like a charm, finally admitted the photo was staged.

The stunt was revealed during court proceedings last year in southern Florida in the so-called documents case. (How is it only a year ago?) In response to Trump’s accusations the FBI mishandled items taken from his home that infamous day, the DOJ—in the hands of Special Counsel Jack Smith by then—confessed FBI agents brought the colorful classified cover sheets to Mar-a-Lago.

At first, Smith said the FBI used the sheets only as “placeholders” indicating where the alleged illegal files had been found. But he finally had to fess up:

“As part of the processing of seized documents marked classified, the [evidence response team] photographed the documents (with appropriate cover sheets added by FBI personnel) next to the box in which they were located,” Smith wrote in a June 2024 brief.

But nowhere did the cover sheets indicate the attached files were evidence. In other words, the photo not only misrepresented the condition in which “classified documents” were found but proved that agents had tampered with the president’s belongings—consisting of evidence in the case—in preparation for a publicity stunt.

As Judge Aileen Cannon continued to let Smith’s team hang themselves in court hearings and briefs—she also had just busted Bratt for lying about the condition of all the evidence seized that day—the scandal became moot in July 2024 when she dismissed the case after determining Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution. And after Trump won the election, the entire case, at least in court, became moot for good.

A Dangerous Raid, Fake Cover Sheets, and a Corrupt Prosecution

But it is not, and should not be, moot for the president, his family, and the American people. While the optics of the raid made for must-watch cable news coverage, the raid itself posed a danger to individuals, including Secret Service agents and Mar-a-Lago employees, since more than two dozen FBI agents arrived armed without identification early that morning.

Further, as I broke on May 22, 2024, Chris Wray’s FBI had authorized the use of lethal force; routine or not, no such policy should have been included, or even considered, as part of the unprecedented search of a former president.

Agents rummaged through the personal belongings of Melania and Barron Trump in potential violation of the broad search warrant terms. In her 2024 autobiography, Mrs. Trump described how she felt afterwards: “I never imagined such an invasion of privacy and violation of rights could occur in my adoptive country,” she wrote in comparing the Biden regime’s tactics to those of her native Slovenia. “It was with a tremendous sense of sadness that I realized such unlawful acts were now possible here. Americans need to understand the dangers posed by a federal government that feels entitled to invade our homes and our lives.”

The ensuing investigation involved more egregious violations of privacy. The FBI obtained an extensive trove of surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago; the Trump-hating chief judge of the D.C. District Court pierced attorney-client privilege between the president and his lawyer in the matter by claiming they were covering up a potential crime. The lawyer, Evan Corcoran, was forced to turn over private documents and testify before a grand jury.

Luckily, it appears payback is in progress; recent reporting suggests the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago could constitute a seminal event in the “grand conspiracy” investigation announced this week by Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Trump allies for years have speculated the purpose of the raid, ordered by then Attorney General Merrick Garland, was to retrieve documents related to the Russiagate hoax, the subject of the DOJ’s current conspiracy probe. “Why was there a raid at Mar-a-Lago?” Devin Nunes, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who blew the lid off the Russiagate hoax back in 2018, rhetorically asked during a Fox News interview last month. “What led to that raid? What led to the appointment of that special counsel? What the hell were they doing at Mar-a-Lago, what were they looking for?”

Good questions that demand answers. The raid, after all, not only represented more fruit of the poisonous Russiagate tree but also another manufactured crime against the president: the “willful retention of national defense material.”

Another Bogus ‘Crime’ With Same Agenda

When Jack Smith announced his 38-count indictment against Trump and two aides in June 2023, the special counsel took on a dire tone. “The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people,” Smith said in a public statement. “Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk.”

Smith, however, never proved anything of the sort. To the contrary, Smith only proved his feckless team of Trump-hating thugs botched evidence, misled and routinely disrespected Judge Cannon—who at one point threatened to remove David Harbach, the other lead prosecutor in the case, from her courtroom for his bad behavior—and admitted the government had no evidence the boxes that had been moved around Mar-a-Lago, the basis for obstruction charges, contained any of the alleged “classified” files.

Additionally, emails showed how the Biden DOJ had been in cahoots with the National Archives and the Biden White House for months to concoct the documents case, as I covered here, in what eerily mirrors facets of what we now know happened in the Obama White House in 2016. (With at least one of the same players, Lisa Monaco, involved in both.)

Trump officials are in the process of bringing some accountability; firings of agents, investigators, and prosecutors who participated in the case remain ongoing.

But the American people—and the Trumps—deserve a full accounting of the truth.

As Mrs. Trump said in her book, “the possibility of similar abuses occurring domestically demands our attention and action, as we must safeguard our liberties before they are lost forever.”

Bravo.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 22:35

'Far From Frantic': How Active Has The 2025 Atlantic Hurricane Season Been?

Atlantic hurricane season officially spans from June to November, but only a sliver of total activity usually occurs before August.

That makes early-season developments a useful pulse check on what may lie ahead.

So far, as Visual Capitalist shows in the chart below, 2025’s pulse is steady but far from frantic.

A Measured Start to 2025

The graphic above, created by USAFacts using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, plots every Atlantic system since 2015 by the month it formed and the strongest category it reached. Green dots denote tropical storms, blue dots Category 1–2 hurricanes, and purple dots Category 3+ “major” hurricanes.

So far in 2025, the dots are sparse: four storms, none exceeding tropical-storm strength. By early August a typical season averages three named storms, so this year is slightly ahead of the curve. That said, it’s far calmer than 2020, which was the early-season outlier.

Below is a detailed look at every Atlantic storm (2015-2025) and its peak intensity:

Storm Name Month Year Classification Andrea June 2025 Tropical storm Barry June 2025 Tropical storm Chantal July 2025 Tropical storm Dexter August 2025 Tropical storm         Alberto June 2024 Tropical Storm Beryl June-July 2024 Hurricane Chris June-July 2024 Tropical Storm Debby August 2024 Hurricane Ernesto August 2024 Hurricane Francine September 2024 Hurricane Gordon September 2024 Tropical Storm Eight (PTC) August 2024 Potential Tropical Cyclone Helene September 2024 Hurricane Isaac September-October 2024 Hurricane Joyce September-October 2024 Tropical Storm Kirk September-October 2024 Hurricane Leslie October 2024 Hurricane Milton October 2024 Hurricane Nadine October 2024 Tropical Storm Oscar October 2024 Hurricane Patty October-November 2024 Tropical Storm Rafael October-November 2024 Hurricane Sara November 2024 Tropical Storm         Arlene June 2023 Tropical Storm Bret June 2023 Tropical Storm Cindy June-July 2023 Tropical Storm Don July 2023 Hurricane Emily August 2023 Tropical Storm Franklin August 2023 Hurricane Gert August-September 2023 Tropical Storm Harold August 2023 Tropical Storm Idalia August 2023 Hurricane Jose August-September 2023 Tropical Storm Katia September 2023 Tropical Storm Lee September 2023 Hurricane Margot September 2023 Tropical Storm Nigel September 2023 Hurricane Ophelia September 2023 Tropical Storm Philippe September-October 2023 Tropical Storm Rina September-October 2023 Tropical Storm Sean October 2023 Tropical Storm Tammy October 2023 Hurricane Vince October 2023 Tropical Storm Whitney November 2023 Tropical Storm         Alex June 2022 Hurricane Bonnie June-July 2022 Tropical Storm Colin July 2022 Tropical Storm Danielle September 2022 Hurricane Earl September 2022 Hurricane Fiona September 2022 Hurricane Gaston September 2022 Tropical Storm Hermine September 2022 Tropical Storm Ian September 2022 Hurricane Julia October 2022 Hurricane Karl October 2022 Tropical Storm Lisa October-November 2022 Hurricane Martin November 2022 Hurricane Nicole November 2022 Hurricane         Ana May 2021 Tropical Storm Bill June 2021 Tropical Storm Claudette June 2021 Tropical Storm Danny June 2021 Hurricane Elsa June-July 2021 Hurricane Fred August 2021 Tropical Storm Grace August 2021 Hurricane Henri August 2021 Hurricane Ida August 2021 Hurricane Julian August-September 2021 Tropical Storm Kate August-September 2021 Tropical Storm Larry September 2021 Hurricane Mindy September 2021 Tropical Storm Nicholas September 2021 Hurricane Odette September 2021 Tropical Storm Peter September 2021 Hurricane Rose September 2021 Hurricane Sam September-October 2021 Hurricane Teresa September 2021 Tropical Storm Victor September-October 2021 Hurricane Wanda October-November 2021 Tropical Storm         Arthur May 2020 Tropical Storm Bertha May 2020 Tropical Storm Cristobal June 2020 Tropical Storm Dolly June 2020 Tropical Storm Edouard July 2020 Tropical Storm Fay July 2020 Tropical Storm Gonzalo July 2020 Hurricane Hanna July 2020 Hurricane Isaias July-August 2020 Hurricane Josephine August 2020 Tropical Storm Kyle August 2020 Tropical Storm Laura August 2020 Hurricane Marco August 2020 Hurricane Nana September 2020 Hurricane Omar September 2020 Tropical Storm Paulette September 2020 Hurricane Rene September 2020 Tropical Storm Sally September 2020 Hurricane Teddy September 2020 Hurricane Vicky September 2020 Tropical Storm Wilfred September 2020 Tropical Storm Alpha September 2020 Subtropical Storm Beta September 2020 Hurricane Gamma October 2020 Tropical Storm Delta October 2020 Hurricane Epsilon October 2020 Hurricane Zeta October 2020 Hurricane Eta November 2020 Hurricane Theta November 2020 Tropical Storm Iota November 2020 Hurricane         Andrea May 2019 Subtropical Storm Barry July 2019 Hurricane Chantal August 2019 Tropical Storm Dorian August-September 2019 Hurricane Erin August 2019 Tropical Storm Fernand September 2019 Tropical Storm Gabrielle September 2019 Tropical Storm Humberto September 2019 Hurricane Imelda September 2019 Tropical Storm Jerry September 2019 Hurricane Karen September 2019 Tropical Storm Lorenzo September-October 2019 Hurricane Melissa November 2019 Tropical Storm Nestor October 2019 Tropical Storm Olga October 2019 Tropical Storm Pablo October 2019 Hurricane Rebekah October 2019 Tropical Storm Sebastien November 2019 Tropical Storm         Alberto May 2018 Subtropical Storm Beryl July 2018 Hurricane Chris July 2018 Hurricane Debby August 2018 Tropical Storm Ernesto August 2018 Tropical Storm Florence August-September 2018 Hurricane Gordon September 2018 Tropical Storm Helene September 2018 Hurricane Isaac September 2018 Hurricane Joyce September 2018 Tropical Storm Kirk September-October 2018 Tropical Storm Leslie September-November 2018 Hurricane Michael October 2018 Hurricane Nadine October 2018 Tropical Storm Oscar October-November 2018 Hurricane         Arlene April 2017 Tropical Storm Bret June 2017 Tropical Storm Cindy June 2017 Tropical Storm Don July 2017 Tropical Storm Emily July-August 2017 Tropical Storm Franklin August 2017 Hurricane Gert August 2017 Hurricane Harvey August 2017 Hurricane Irma August-September 2017 Hurricane Jose September 2017 Hurricane Katia September 2017 Hurricane Lee September 2017 Hurricane Maria September 2017 Hurricane Nate October 2017 Hurricane Ophelia October 2017 Hurricane Philippe October 2017 Tropical Storm Rina November 2017 Tropical Storm         Alex January 2016 Hurricane Bonnie May-June 2016 Tropical Storm Colin June 2016 Tropical Storm Danielle June 2016 Tropical Storm Earl August 2016 Hurricane Fiona August 2016 Hurricane Gaston August 2016 Hurricane Hermine August-September 2016 Hurricane Ian September 2016 Tropical Storm Julia September 2016 Tropical Storm Karl September 2016 Tropical Storm Lisa September 2016 Tropical Storm Matthew September-October 2016 Hurricane Nicole October 2016 Hurricane Otto November 2016 Hurricane         Ana May 2015 Tropical Storm Bill June 2015 Tropical Storm Claudette July 2015 Tropical Storm Danny August 2015 Hurricane Erika August 2015 Tropical Storm Fred August-September 2015 Hurricane Grace September 2015 Tropical Storm Henri September 2015 Tropical Storm Ida September 2015 Hurricane Joaquin September-October 2015 Hurricane Kate November 2015 Hurricane Where Storms Hit Home

The county-level map below shades areas that have endured at least one bout of 39 mph winds since 2015. The deepest purples hug the Gulf Coast, Florida peninsula, and the Outer Banks, but inland regions from Georgia’s wiregrass to eastern North Carolina also light up, evidence that wind impacts reach far beyond shorelines.

For perspective on how damaging these systems can be, see our ranking of the costliest hurricanes to hit the U.S.

Looking Ahead

Climatology shows the first hurricane typically spins up in early to mid-August, with major-category hurricanes following later that month. Warm sea-surface temperatures and a likely transition toward neutral ENSO conditions could still unlock the ingredients for rapid intensification. In short: a quiet opening is no guarantee of a quiet finish.

As peak season approaches, preparedness remains key for coastal communities.

Explore our companion visualization, Visualizing the Typical Atlantic Hurricane Season, and hundreds of other bite-sized data stories.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 21:20

'Far From Frantic': How Active Has The 2025 Atlantic Hurricane Season Been?

Atlantic hurricane season officially spans from June to November, but only a sliver of total activity usually occurs before August.

That makes early-season developments a useful pulse check on what may lie ahead.

So far, as Visual Capitalist shows in the chart below, 2025’s pulse is steady but far from frantic.

A Measured Start to 2025

The graphic above, created by USAFacts using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, plots every Atlantic system since 2015 by the month it formed and the strongest category it reached. Green dots denote tropical storms, blue dots Category 1–2 hurricanes, and purple dots Category 3+ “major” hurricanes.

So far in 2025, the dots are sparse: four storms, none exceeding tropical-storm strength. By early August a typical season averages three named storms, so this year is slightly ahead of the curve. That said, it’s far calmer than 2020, which was the early-season outlier.

Below is a detailed look at every Atlantic storm (2015-2025) and its peak intensity:

Storm Name Month Year Classification Andrea June 2025 Tropical storm Barry June 2025 Tropical storm Chantal July 2025 Tropical storm Dexter August 2025 Tropical storm         Alberto June 2024 Tropical Storm Beryl June-July 2024 Hurricane Chris June-July 2024 Tropical Storm Debby August 2024 Hurricane Ernesto August 2024 Hurricane Francine September 2024 Hurricane Gordon September 2024 Tropical Storm Eight (PTC) August 2024 Potential Tropical Cyclone Helene September 2024 Hurricane Isaac September-October 2024 Hurricane Joyce September-October 2024 Tropical Storm Kirk September-October 2024 Hurricane Leslie October 2024 Hurricane Milton October 2024 Hurricane Nadine October 2024 Tropical Storm Oscar October 2024 Hurricane Patty October-November 2024 Tropical Storm Rafael October-November 2024 Hurricane Sara November 2024 Tropical Storm         Arlene June 2023 Tropical Storm Bret June 2023 Tropical Storm Cindy June-July 2023 Tropical Storm Don July 2023 Hurricane Emily August 2023 Tropical Storm Franklin August 2023 Hurricane Gert August-September 2023 Tropical Storm Harold August 2023 Tropical Storm Idalia August 2023 Hurricane Jose August-September 2023 Tropical Storm Katia September 2023 Tropical Storm Lee September 2023 Hurricane Margot September 2023 Tropical Storm Nigel September 2023 Hurricane Ophelia September 2023 Tropical Storm Philippe September-October 2023 Tropical Storm Rina September-October 2023 Tropical Storm Sean October 2023 Tropical Storm Tammy October 2023 Hurricane Vince October 2023 Tropical Storm Whitney November 2023 Tropical Storm         Alex June 2022 Hurricane Bonnie June-July 2022 Tropical Storm Colin July 2022 Tropical Storm Danielle September 2022 Hurricane Earl September 2022 Hurricane Fiona September 2022 Hurricane Gaston September 2022 Tropical Storm Hermine September 2022 Tropical Storm Ian September 2022 Hurricane Julia October 2022 Hurricane Karl October 2022 Tropical Storm Lisa October-November 2022 Hurricane Martin November 2022 Hurricane Nicole November 2022 Hurricane         Ana May 2021 Tropical Storm Bill June 2021 Tropical Storm Claudette June 2021 Tropical Storm Danny June 2021 Hurricane Elsa June-July 2021 Hurricane Fred August 2021 Tropical Storm Grace August 2021 Hurricane Henri August 2021 Hurricane Ida August 2021 Hurricane Julian August-September 2021 Tropical Storm Kate August-September 2021 Tropical Storm Larry September 2021 Hurricane Mindy September 2021 Tropical Storm Nicholas September 2021 Hurricane Odette September 2021 Tropical Storm Peter September 2021 Hurricane Rose September 2021 Hurricane Sam September-October 2021 Hurricane Teresa September 2021 Tropical Storm Victor September-October 2021 Hurricane Wanda October-November 2021 Tropical Storm         Arthur May 2020 Tropical Storm Bertha May 2020 Tropical Storm Cristobal June 2020 Tropical Storm Dolly June 2020 Tropical Storm Edouard July 2020 Tropical Storm Fay July 2020 Tropical Storm Gonzalo July 2020 Hurricane Hanna July 2020 Hurricane Isaias July-August 2020 Hurricane Josephine August 2020 Tropical Storm Kyle August 2020 Tropical Storm Laura August 2020 Hurricane Marco August 2020 Hurricane Nana September 2020 Hurricane Omar September 2020 Tropical Storm Paulette September 2020 Hurricane Rene September 2020 Tropical Storm Sally September 2020 Hurricane Teddy September 2020 Hurricane Vicky September 2020 Tropical Storm Wilfred September 2020 Tropical Storm Alpha September 2020 Subtropical Storm Beta September 2020 Hurricane Gamma October 2020 Tropical Storm Delta October 2020 Hurricane Epsilon October 2020 Hurricane Zeta October 2020 Hurricane Eta November 2020 Hurricane Theta November 2020 Tropical Storm Iota November 2020 Hurricane         Andrea May 2019 Subtropical Storm Barry July 2019 Hurricane Chantal August 2019 Tropical Storm Dorian August-September 2019 Hurricane Erin August 2019 Tropical Storm Fernand September 2019 Tropical Storm Gabrielle September 2019 Tropical Storm Humberto September 2019 Hurricane Imelda September 2019 Tropical Storm Jerry September 2019 Hurricane Karen September 2019 Tropical Storm Lorenzo September-October 2019 Hurricane Melissa November 2019 Tropical Storm Nestor October 2019 Tropical Storm Olga October 2019 Tropical Storm Pablo October 2019 Hurricane Rebekah October 2019 Tropical Storm Sebastien November 2019 Tropical Storm         Alberto May 2018 Subtropical Storm Beryl July 2018 Hurricane Chris July 2018 Hurricane Debby August 2018 Tropical Storm Ernesto August 2018 Tropical Storm Florence August-September 2018 Hurricane Gordon September 2018 Tropical Storm Helene September 2018 Hurricane Isaac September 2018 Hurricane Joyce September 2018 Tropical Storm Kirk September-October 2018 Tropical Storm Leslie September-November 2018 Hurricane Michael October 2018 Hurricane Nadine October 2018 Tropical Storm Oscar October-November 2018 Hurricane         Arlene April 2017 Tropical Storm Bret June 2017 Tropical Storm Cindy June 2017 Tropical Storm Don July 2017 Tropical Storm Emily July-August 2017 Tropical Storm Franklin August 2017 Hurricane Gert August 2017 Hurricane Harvey August 2017 Hurricane Irma August-September 2017 Hurricane Jose September 2017 Hurricane Katia September 2017 Hurricane Lee September 2017 Hurricane Maria September 2017 Hurricane Nate October 2017 Hurricane Ophelia October 2017 Hurricane Philippe October 2017 Tropical Storm Rina November 2017 Tropical Storm         Alex January 2016 Hurricane Bonnie May-June 2016 Tropical Storm Colin June 2016 Tropical Storm Danielle June 2016 Tropical Storm Earl August 2016 Hurricane Fiona August 2016 Hurricane Gaston August 2016 Hurricane Hermine August-September 2016 Hurricane Ian September 2016 Tropical Storm Julia September 2016 Tropical Storm Karl September 2016 Tropical Storm Lisa September 2016 Tropical Storm Matthew September-October 2016 Hurricane Nicole October 2016 Hurricane Otto November 2016 Hurricane         Ana May 2015 Tropical Storm Bill June 2015 Tropical Storm Claudette July 2015 Tropical Storm Danny August 2015 Hurricane Erika August 2015 Tropical Storm Fred August-September 2015 Hurricane Grace September 2015 Tropical Storm Henri September 2015 Tropical Storm Ida September 2015 Hurricane Joaquin September-October 2015 Hurricane Kate November 2015 Hurricane Where Storms Hit Home

The county-level map below shades areas that have endured at least one bout of 39 mph winds since 2015. The deepest purples hug the Gulf Coast, Florida peninsula, and the Outer Banks, but inland regions from Georgia’s wiregrass to eastern North Carolina also light up, evidence that wind impacts reach far beyond shorelines.

For perspective on how damaging these systems can be, see our ranking of the costliest hurricanes to hit the U.S.

Looking Ahead

Climatology shows the first hurricane typically spins up in early to mid-August, with major-category hurricanes following later that month. Warm sea-surface temperatures and a likely transition toward neutral ENSO conditions could still unlock the ingredients for rapid intensification. In short: a quiet opening is no guarantee of a quiet finish.

As peak season approaches, preparedness remains key for coastal communities.

Explore our companion visualization, Visualizing the Typical Atlantic Hurricane Season, and hundreds of other bite-sized data stories.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 21:20

DOJ Moves To Unseal Exhibits From Epstein, Maxwell Grand Jury Investigations

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday asked a federal court to unseal grand jury exhibits from the investigations into sex traffickers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In a submission to U.S. District Judge Richard Berman and fellow U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, the DOJ said it wants grand jury exhibits in the two cases unsealed with redactions to keep the identities of their victims private.

Earlier this week, the DOJ asked the judges to unseal grand jury transcripts in order to compare those documents with the public record.

“As there are parties whose names appear in the grand jury exhibits but did not appear in the grand jury transcripts, the Government is undertaking to notify such parties to the extent their names appear in grand jury exhibits that were not publicly admitted at the Maxwell trial (and they were not already notified in connection with the request to unseal the grand jury transcripts),” the Justice Department’s attorneys wrote.

The latest request relates to the 2019 criminal case that was brought against Epstein, which was later dropped after he was found dead in a New York City jail cell, as well as the criminal case against Maxwell.

She was convicted on child sex trafficking charges in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in a federal facility.

Friday’s filing by the government also said that some of the evidence in the Epstein and Maxwell cases may overlap with exhibits that were released to the public when Maxwell went on trial.

Also, the DOJ said that it will later submit sealed submissions to clarify what sections of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury exhibits have already been made available to the public. The government has also compared the exhibits against the trial record and civil complaints that were filed by certain victims, the court filing said.

It’s not clear what the exhibits may include or when they could be unsealed.

The Epstein grand jury met twice in 2019, on June 18 and July 2 of that year, the DOJ letter said on Aug. 4. Meanwhile, the Maxwell grand jury met three times, on June 29 and July 8 of 2020, and on March 29, 2021, according to the letter.

That letter had also asked for the release of the five grand jury transcripts and told the judges that the DOJ may also request the unsealing of grand jury exhibits. The agency said it wants several more days to craft arguments for that request.

Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.

Previously, in 2008, Epstein was sentenced to 13 months in work custody for procuring a child for prostitution and sex trafficking.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:55

DOJ Moves To Unseal Exhibits From Epstein, Maxwell Grand Jury Investigations

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday asked a federal court to unseal grand jury exhibits from the investigations into sex traffickers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In a submission to U.S. District Judge Richard Berman and fellow U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, the DOJ said it wants grand jury exhibits in the two cases unsealed with redactions to keep the identities of their victims private.

Earlier this week, the DOJ asked the judges to unseal grand jury transcripts in order to compare those documents with the public record.

“As there are parties whose names appear in the grand jury exhibits but did not appear in the grand jury transcripts, the Government is undertaking to notify such parties to the extent their names appear in grand jury exhibits that were not publicly admitted at the Maxwell trial (and they were not already notified in connection with the request to unseal the grand jury transcripts),” the Justice Department’s attorneys wrote.

The latest request relates to the 2019 criminal case that was brought against Epstein, which was later dropped after he was found dead in a New York City jail cell, as well as the criminal case against Maxwell.

She was convicted on child sex trafficking charges in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in a federal facility.

Friday’s filing by the government also said that some of the evidence in the Epstein and Maxwell cases may overlap with exhibits that were released to the public when Maxwell went on trial.

Also, the DOJ said that it will later submit sealed submissions to clarify what sections of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury exhibits have already been made available to the public. The government has also compared the exhibits against the trial record and civil complaints that were filed by certain victims, the court filing said.

It’s not clear what the exhibits may include or when they could be unsealed.

The Epstein grand jury met twice in 2019, on June 18 and July 2 of that year, the DOJ letter said on Aug. 4. Meanwhile, the Maxwell grand jury met three times, on June 29 and July 8 of 2020, and on March 29, 2021, according to the letter.

That letter had also asked for the release of the five grand jury transcripts and told the judges that the DOJ may also request the unsealing of grand jury exhibits. The agency said it wants several more days to craft arguments for that request.

Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.

Previously, in 2008, Epstein was sentenced to 13 months in work custody for procuring a child for prostitution and sex trafficking.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:55

Social Security Insolvency Projected 6 Months Sooner, Chief Actuary Says

The Social Security trust funds are projected to run out about six months earlier than previously estimated, according to a new analysis from the program’s chief actuary.

Letters sent on Aug. 5 to Sen. Ron Wyden (D‑Ore.) and Rep. Steven Horsford (D‑Nev.) say the combined Old‑Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds are now expected to be depleted in the first quarter of 2034, rather than the third quarter of that year as in the most recent trustees’ report.

The 2025 trustees’ report, released in June, had already moved up the combined depletion date by one year—from 2035 in the prior report to 2034—reflecting worsening demographics and legislative changes.

Under the new analysis carried out in response to requests from Wyden and Horsford, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act accelerates that timeline further by about six months.

As Tom Ozimek reports for The Epoch Times, the actuary’s letter attributes the earlier depletion to income‑tax provisions in the law, which make lower tax rates enacted in 2017 permanent and temporarily expand deductions for older Americans.

It estimates the changes will reduce revenue from taxing Social Security benefits and increase program costs by about $168.6 billion through 2034, worsening the program’s 75‑year actuarial deficit from 3.82 percent to 3.98 percent of taxable payroll.

When viewed separately, the OASI fund—which pays retirement and survivor benefits—is now forecast to run dry in the fourth quarter of 2032, roughly three months earlier than the previous estimate of the first quarter of 2033.

The DI fund, by contrast, remains solvent through the end of the 75-year forecast window. However, because the two funds are often assessed together to reflect total benefit obligations, the combined reserves are still expected to be exhausted by early 2034.

The actuary’s office said the analysis covers only the tax‑related provisions and will serve as a baseline for the 2026 trustees’ report, which will incorporate updated data and assumptions. In particular, the forthcoming trustees’ report will also include proposals intended to extend the solvency of Social Security.

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the actuary’s findings confirm earlier warnings that recent Republican tax and spending policies are straining the program.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has said its tax policy will stimulate economic growth and expand the tax base, mitigating the fiscal effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act without raising tax rates.

A White House Council of Economic Advisers paper from May stated that the permanent extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and business incentives in the bill would boost capital investment, wages, and job growth, strengthening government revenue streams over time.

Proposals to Shore Up the Program

Democrats have largely focused on raising payroll taxes for higher earners to close the funding gap. The Social Security tax currently applies to 6.2 percent of wages up to $176,100 in 2025, and income above that level is exempt. The wage base is adjusted annually for inflation by the Social Security Administration.

A proposal introduced in 2023 by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D‑Mass.)—known as the Social Security Expansion Act—would apply the tax to earnings above $250,000 and boost benefits for some groups. Proponents say the measure would keep the program solvent through 2096, though conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation say that it would amount to one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history and risk broader economic harm.

Republican plans have taken a different approach, focusing on changes to benefits and eligibility rather than new taxes. A blueprint released last spring by the Republican Study Committee—the largest group of conservatives in the House—called for gradually raising the retirement age, adjusting benefit formulas, and limiting certain spousal and dependent benefits for high‑income retirees.

Some analysts, such as those at Brookings, have suggested that any lasting fix will likely require a mix of tax increases and benefit adjustments, phased in gradually to give workers and retirees time to plan. They note that previous solvency deals, such as the 1983 reforms, combined measures from both parties to extend the program’s life for decades.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:30

Social Security Insolvency Projected 6 Months Sooner, Chief Actuary Says

The Social Security trust funds are projected to run out about six months earlier than previously estimated, according to a new analysis from the program’s chief actuary.

Letters sent on Aug. 5 to Sen. Ron Wyden (D‑Ore.) and Rep. Steven Horsford (D‑Nev.) say the combined Old‑Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds are now expected to be depleted in the first quarter of 2034, rather than the third quarter of that year as in the most recent trustees’ report.

The 2025 trustees’ report, released in June, had already moved up the combined depletion date by one year—from 2035 in the prior report to 2034—reflecting worsening demographics and legislative changes.

Under the new analysis carried out in response to requests from Wyden and Horsford, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act accelerates that timeline further by about six months.

As Tom Ozimek reports for The Epoch Times, the actuary’s letter attributes the earlier depletion to income‑tax provisions in the law, which make lower tax rates enacted in 2017 permanent and temporarily expand deductions for older Americans.

It estimates the changes will reduce revenue from taxing Social Security benefits and increase program costs by about $168.6 billion through 2034, worsening the program’s 75‑year actuarial deficit from 3.82 percent to 3.98 percent of taxable payroll.

When viewed separately, the OASI fund—which pays retirement and survivor benefits—is now forecast to run dry in the fourth quarter of 2032, roughly three months earlier than the previous estimate of the first quarter of 2033.

The DI fund, by contrast, remains solvent through the end of the 75-year forecast window. However, because the two funds are often assessed together to reflect total benefit obligations, the combined reserves are still expected to be exhausted by early 2034.

The actuary’s office said the analysis covers only the tax‑related provisions and will serve as a baseline for the 2026 trustees’ report, which will incorporate updated data and assumptions. In particular, the forthcoming trustees’ report will also include proposals intended to extend the solvency of Social Security.

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the actuary’s findings confirm earlier warnings that recent Republican tax and spending policies are straining the program.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has said its tax policy will stimulate economic growth and expand the tax base, mitigating the fiscal effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act without raising tax rates.

A White House Council of Economic Advisers paper from May stated that the permanent extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and business incentives in the bill would boost capital investment, wages, and job growth, strengthening government revenue streams over time.

Proposals to Shore Up the Program

Democrats have largely focused on raising payroll taxes for higher earners to close the funding gap. The Social Security tax currently applies to 6.2 percent of wages up to $176,100 in 2025, and income above that level is exempt. The wage base is adjusted annually for inflation by the Social Security Administration.

A proposal introduced in 2023 by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D‑Mass.)—known as the Social Security Expansion Act—would apply the tax to earnings above $250,000 and boost benefits for some groups. Proponents say the measure would keep the program solvent through 2096, though conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation say that it would amount to one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history and risk broader economic harm.

Republican plans have taken a different approach, focusing on changes to benefits and eligibility rather than new taxes. A blueprint released last spring by the Republican Study Committee—the largest group of conservatives in the House—called for gradually raising the retirement age, adjusting benefit formulas, and limiting certain spousal and dependent benefits for high‑income retirees.

Some analysts, such as those at Brookings, have suggested that any lasting fix will likely require a mix of tax increases and benefit adjustments, phased in gradually to give workers and retirees time to plan. They note that previous solvency deals, such as the 1983 reforms, combined measures from both parties to extend the program’s life for decades.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:30

Doug Casey Responds To The Toughest Questions Facing Libertarians & Anarcho-Capitalists

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: Today, we’ll explore some of the most common criticisms of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

Imagine two tribes. One is cohesive and tightly knit. The other promotes hyper-individualism. Which is likely to win in a conflict?

Doug Casey: There’s nothing wrong with forming cohesive groups. Humans have always been tribal because it’s conducive to survival. Many hands make light work. And specialization and division of labor—which is critical for progress—is only possible with a group. The problem is whether the group is voluntary or coercive in nature.

And you’re right. In a war, the tribe structured like a military unit has some advantages over a loose group of rugged individualists. But its only advantage is in war, which is something to be avoided at almost any cost. Why, then, do humans usually default to collectivism instead of libertarianism?

Unfortunately, the institution of the family, which is the foundation of society, inadvertently sets a bad example. That’s because the family—by its very nature—is authoritarian and socialistic. The parents call the shots and provide free food and shelter, while the kids get into the habit early of having things provided for them. They give according to their ability and receive according to their needs, a Marxist ideal. So perhaps the family, which is a good thing, paradoxically gets people off on the wrong foot.

Worse, in the real world, the arguments for liberty and individualism are all intellectual. They’re logical, they make sense—but most people don’t reason. The average person doesn’t live in an intellectual world; he lives in an emotional world. He acts according to what he feels, not what he thinks. He does what feels right without thinking about the consequences—even the immediate and direct ones, let alone the indirect and delayed ones. Reason is often used to justify emotions.

Those are two major reasons—and there are lots of others—why socialism has more appeal than capitalism, not to mention libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

The socialistic habits we learn with the family are reinforced by emotions, feelings, and, oftentimes, irrational assumptions. Unlike libertarianism, socialism promises something for nothing, the prospect of automatic security, and a perpetual free lunch. Socialism sounds better to those who haven’t got critical thinking skills. That’s a real problem, and a cause for pessimism about the future of humanity.

The problem is compounded by the nature of politics, which brings out the worst in people. When you’re trying to influence “the masses,” emotion works 100 times better than reason. Worse yet, the people who are drawn to politics want power and want to manipulate others. Politics naturally attracts criminal personalities.

It’s almost genetically guaranteed that individualists, AnCaps, and libertarians have the odds stacked against them.

International Man: How, then, do you respond to critics who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are impractical, utopian fantasies?

Doug Casey: Well, you can look at this from two points of view—the practical and the moral.

In primitive times, it was possible for a central power to dictate how much food would cost, how much laborers would be paid, and what the rules were in every area of life. It was counterproductive, but it was possible because things were very simple, unlike today’s world, with billions of people and trillions of transactions taking place every day. However, central authorities and socialism are at odds with a technological society. Collectivism is unworkable on any scale larger than a family, as the Soviets and the Maoists proved. It turned out that, in the real world, communism was the utopian fantasy.

More importantly, any system other than radical libertarianism is immoral. I won’t discuss property rights at length here, but suffice it to say that your primary possession is your own body. And why should anybody else have a right to tell you what you must or must not do with your own body? That includes how you use it, what you ingest, what you think, what you say, and how you use your other possessions. Every person is a sovereign being.

Unfortunately, humans’ innate character flaws and ingrained psychological tendencies cause them to do self-destructive things like trying to replicate the family on a giant scale, by creating the institution of the State.

International Man: How do you respond to those who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are, at best, irrelevant? And at worst, tools used by powerful interests to atomize individuals, making them easier to control and dominate?

Doug Casey: Politicians are disinclined to treat people as individuals. They try to control and dominate by forcing individuals to become parts of a collective.

Some say libertarianism is irrelevant because so few people understand its principles. And even if they do understand them, they don’t put them into effect.

But libertarianism cyclically expands and contracts. For instance, the reason that America was unique in world history is that it was the first country ever founded on the principles of libertarianism. And those principles are responsible for its immense success. But over America’s history, sometimes those principles grow, and sometimes they fade.

Libertarianism is basically a belief in the non-aggression principle and the limiting of force. Anarcho-capitalism goes beyond libertarianism because it doesn’t believe in the existence of the State as an entity, as an institution. And 50 years ago, the term “anarcho-capitalism” didn’t even exist. Now it’s widely discussed. The president of Argentina is an anarcho-capitalist, and the country is being radically transformed.

Speaking as an Ancap myself, I’d like to see not just 200, but eight billion sovereign nations in the world. The key is to develop institutions and accepted ways of thinking that emphasize cooperation, not coercion, in everything.

International Man: Many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that fully privatizing all property would effectively solve the migrant and border issue.

Critics, however, say this vision is unrealistic and not a serious solution, claiming it ultimately serves as cover for open-border advocacy and worsens the situation in practice.

How do you respond to that criticism?

Doug Casey: Moving the U.S. toward pure libertarianism—anarcho-capitalism—is by far the best solution to the border issue. Much better than walls and border guards checking to see if “your papers are in order.” If 100% of the U.S. were privately owned, with no exceptions, it would be up to the owner of that property to decide whether any given person or group could use it or trespass on it.

The real problem is the welfare systems of the U.S. In the 19th century, there was immense immigration to the U.S. But there was zero government support. Arrivals were immediately responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves—or they would, frankly, starve. Immigrants knew that. As a result, the U.S. drew the best and most enterprising people.

Today, however, migrants are quite aware of the immense welfare systems available at the local, State, and national levels, in addition to what’s provided by NGOs, which are basically maintained with tax dollars, directly or indirectly. There are networks that actively facilitate the travel and upkeep of the migrants. If welfare were abolished, we wouldn’t draw these kinds of people. The argument can be made that George Soros might use his billions to purposely import them to property that he owns. But there they would have to stay; it’s a straw man argument.

Without a government to support them, migrants would be discouraged. Of course, they could steal for a living. But thieves could expect to be treated harshly, perhaps with extreme prejudice.

Ultimately, you can’t keep people from coming or going. And why should you? Groups have migrated throughout world history. But the best way to maintain stability is with 100% private property, not a reliance on political gimmicks. Politicians can be corrupted and bribed. In fact, that’s why many get into politics. Ancaps rely on the market, not politicos, bureaucrats, and storm troopers, to maintain stability.

International Man: Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism emphasize individual liberty and voluntary exchange, but critics argue they offer little guidance on deeper ethical or moral responsibilities beyond the non-aggression principle.

How do you see these philosophies addressing complicated questions of ethics and morality in real-world situations?

Doug Casey: Ancaps don’t intend to address issues of ethics and morality. Those things are settled by religion and philosophy. Libertarianism and ancapism are mainly concerned with how society can best protect itself from the initiation of force and fraud. It doesn’t really matter what philosophy or religion individuals are partial to, as long as they don’t initiate violence against each other.

Remember, there are just two rules: Do all that you say you’re going to do, and don’t impinge upon other people or their property. With only two laws, you don’t need a legislature. And ignorance of the law is truly no excuse.

Beyond that, you can believe or do whatever you’d like. The fact of the matter is that birds of a feather naturally flock together. People form into groups based on whatever is important to them. For some, it’s their race. For some, it’s their religion. For some, it’s their way of thinking. None of that matters as long as they don’t aggress against other individuals or other groups.

There’s much more to be said about these things. I urge you to read “The Market for Liberty.” It’s a very short book. But one that can totally change how you see the world.

*  *  *

Economic turmoil isn’t a question of if—but when. Most will panic. The prepared will not only survive but come out ahead. We’ve put together a free special report revealing practical steps to protect your assets, secure your lifestyle, and uncover opportunities that emerge when the system breaks down. Download your Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse now—free of charge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:05

Doug Casey Responds To The Toughest Questions Facing Libertarians & Anarcho-Capitalists

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: Today, we’ll explore some of the most common criticisms of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

Imagine two tribes. One is cohesive and tightly knit. The other promotes hyper-individualism. Which is likely to win in a conflict?

Doug Casey: There’s nothing wrong with forming cohesive groups. Humans have always been tribal because it’s conducive to survival. Many hands make light work. And specialization and division of labor—which is critical for progress—is only possible with a group. The problem is whether the group is voluntary or coercive in nature.

And you’re right. In a war, the tribe structured like a military unit has some advantages over a loose group of rugged individualists. But its only advantage is in war, which is something to be avoided at almost any cost. Why, then, do humans usually default to collectivism instead of libertarianism?

Unfortunately, the institution of the family, which is the foundation of society, inadvertently sets a bad example. That’s because the family—by its very nature—is authoritarian and socialistic. The parents call the shots and provide free food and shelter, while the kids get into the habit early of having things provided for them. They give according to their ability and receive according to their needs, a Marxist ideal. So perhaps the family, which is a good thing, paradoxically gets people off on the wrong foot.

Worse, in the real world, the arguments for liberty and individualism are all intellectual. They’re logical, they make sense—but most people don’t reason. The average person doesn’t live in an intellectual world; he lives in an emotional world. He acts according to what he feels, not what he thinks. He does what feels right without thinking about the consequences—even the immediate and direct ones, let alone the indirect and delayed ones. Reason is often used to justify emotions.

Those are two major reasons—and there are lots of others—why socialism has more appeal than capitalism, not to mention libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.

The socialistic habits we learn with the family are reinforced by emotions, feelings, and, oftentimes, irrational assumptions. Unlike libertarianism, socialism promises something for nothing, the prospect of automatic security, and a perpetual free lunch. Socialism sounds better to those who haven’t got critical thinking skills. That’s a real problem, and a cause for pessimism about the future of humanity.

The problem is compounded by the nature of politics, which brings out the worst in people. When you’re trying to influence “the masses,” emotion works 100 times better than reason. Worse yet, the people who are drawn to politics want power and want to manipulate others. Politics naturally attracts criminal personalities.

It’s almost genetically guaranteed that individualists, AnCaps, and libertarians have the odds stacked against them.

International Man: How, then, do you respond to critics who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are impractical, utopian fantasies?

Doug Casey: Well, you can look at this from two points of view—the practical and the moral.

In primitive times, it was possible for a central power to dictate how much food would cost, how much laborers would be paid, and what the rules were in every area of life. It was counterproductive, but it was possible because things were very simple, unlike today’s world, with billions of people and trillions of transactions taking place every day. However, central authorities and socialism are at odds with a technological society. Collectivism is unworkable on any scale larger than a family, as the Soviets and the Maoists proved. It turned out that, in the real world, communism was the utopian fantasy.

More importantly, any system other than radical libertarianism is immoral. I won’t discuss property rights at length here, but suffice it to say that your primary possession is your own body. And why should anybody else have a right to tell you what you must or must not do with your own body? That includes how you use it, what you ingest, what you think, what you say, and how you use your other possessions. Every person is a sovereign being.

Unfortunately, humans’ innate character flaws and ingrained psychological tendencies cause them to do self-destructive things like trying to replicate the family on a giant scale, by creating the institution of the State.

International Man: How do you respond to those who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are, at best, irrelevant? And at worst, tools used by powerful interests to atomize individuals, making them easier to control and dominate?

Doug Casey: Politicians are disinclined to treat people as individuals. They try to control and dominate by forcing individuals to become parts of a collective.

Some say libertarianism is irrelevant because so few people understand its principles. And even if they do understand them, they don’t put them into effect.

But libertarianism cyclically expands and contracts. For instance, the reason that America was unique in world history is that it was the first country ever founded on the principles of libertarianism. And those principles are responsible for its immense success. But over America’s history, sometimes those principles grow, and sometimes they fade.

Libertarianism is basically a belief in the non-aggression principle and the limiting of force. Anarcho-capitalism goes beyond libertarianism because it doesn’t believe in the existence of the State as an entity, as an institution. And 50 years ago, the term “anarcho-capitalism” didn’t even exist. Now it’s widely discussed. The president of Argentina is an anarcho-capitalist, and the country is being radically transformed.

Speaking as an Ancap myself, I’d like to see not just 200, but eight billion sovereign nations in the world. The key is to develop institutions and accepted ways of thinking that emphasize cooperation, not coercion, in everything.

International Man: Many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that fully privatizing all property would effectively solve the migrant and border issue.

Critics, however, say this vision is unrealistic and not a serious solution, claiming it ultimately serves as cover for open-border advocacy and worsens the situation in practice.

How do you respond to that criticism?

Doug Casey: Moving the U.S. toward pure libertarianism—anarcho-capitalism—is by far the best solution to the border issue. Much better than walls and border guards checking to see if “your papers are in order.” If 100% of the U.S. were privately owned, with no exceptions, it would be up to the owner of that property to decide whether any given person or group could use it or trespass on it.

The real problem is the welfare systems of the U.S. In the 19th century, there was immense immigration to the U.S. But there was zero government support. Arrivals were immediately responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves—or they would, frankly, starve. Immigrants knew that. As a result, the U.S. drew the best and most enterprising people.

Today, however, migrants are quite aware of the immense welfare systems available at the local, State, and national levels, in addition to what’s provided by NGOs, which are basically maintained with tax dollars, directly or indirectly. There are networks that actively facilitate the travel and upkeep of the migrants. If welfare were abolished, we wouldn’t draw these kinds of people. The argument can be made that George Soros might use his billions to purposely import them to property that he owns. But there they would have to stay; it’s a straw man argument.

Without a government to support them, migrants would be discouraged. Of course, they could steal for a living. But thieves could expect to be treated harshly, perhaps with extreme prejudice.

Ultimately, you can’t keep people from coming or going. And why should you? Groups have migrated throughout world history. But the best way to maintain stability is with 100% private property, not a reliance on political gimmicks. Politicians can be corrupted and bribed. In fact, that’s why many get into politics. Ancaps rely on the market, not politicos, bureaucrats, and storm troopers, to maintain stability.

International Man: Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism emphasize individual liberty and voluntary exchange, but critics argue they offer little guidance on deeper ethical or moral responsibilities beyond the non-aggression principle.

How do you see these philosophies addressing complicated questions of ethics and morality in real-world situations?

Doug Casey: Ancaps don’t intend to address issues of ethics and morality. Those things are settled by religion and philosophy. Libertarianism and ancapism are mainly concerned with how society can best protect itself from the initiation of force and fraud. It doesn’t really matter what philosophy or religion individuals are partial to, as long as they don’t initiate violence against each other.

Remember, there are just two rules: Do all that you say you’re going to do, and don’t impinge upon other people or their property. With only two laws, you don’t need a legislature. And ignorance of the law is truly no excuse.

Beyond that, you can believe or do whatever you’d like. The fact of the matter is that birds of a feather naturally flock together. People form into groups based on whatever is important to them. For some, it’s their race. For some, it’s their religion. For some, it’s their way of thinking. None of that matters as long as they don’t aggress against other individuals or other groups.

There’s much more to be said about these things. I urge you to read “The Market for Liberty.” It’s a very short book. But one that can totally change how you see the world.

*  *  *

Economic turmoil isn’t a question of if—but when. Most will panic. The prepared will not only survive but come out ahead. We’ve put together a free special report revealing practical steps to protect your assets, secure your lifestyle, and uncover opportunities that emerge when the system breaks down. Download your Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse now—free of charge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:05

Global Food Prices Marching Higher Serves As Warning For 'Fragile States'

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' Food Price Index, a global benchmark for food commodity prices, registered its highest level since early 2023 in July. This marks a notable inflection point after a multi-year downward trend that followed the Covid and Russia-Ukraine war price spikes. 

The FAO Food Price Index averaged 130.1 in July, up 1.6% from June, driven primarily by sharp increases in meat and vegetable oil prices.

"The index tracks monthly changes in the international prices of a set of globally traded food commodities. In July, price increases in the meat and vegetable oil indices more than offset declines in the cereal, dairy and sugar indices," FAO wrote in its monthly report. 

The FAO Food Price Index has undergone a significant reversal since bottoming out in early 2024, following a downturn after the price spikes during Covid and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is now at its highest level since February 2023, up 43% from its early Covid-era lows, and will likely remain elevated into next year.

Here's a summary of the report:

• Headline Index: Averaged 130.1 (+1.6% MoM), driven by meat and vegetable oils. Still 18.8% below the March 2022 peak but 7.6% above July 2024.

• Cereals (106.5, -0.8% MoM): Wheat & sorghum prices fell on new harvests; maize & barley rose. Rice (-1.8%) declined on ample supply and weak demand.

• Vegetable Oils (166.8, +7.1% MoM): 3-year high. Palm oil up on strong demand; soy oil supported by biofuel sector; sunflower oil higher on Black Sea supply tightness; rapeseed oil down on new EU crop.

• Meat (127.3, +1.2% MoM): Record high. Bovine & ovine prices surged on China/U.S. demand; poultry edged higher as Brazil regained AI-free status; pig meat fell on oversupply & weak EU demand.

• Dairy (155.3, -0.1% MoM): First drop since April 2024. Butter & milk powders down on abundant supply; cheese prices up on strong Asia/Near East demand & tighter EU exports.

• Sugar (103.3, -0.2% MoM): Fifth monthly decline on expectations of 2025/26 production rebound (Brazil, India, Thailand), partly offset by recovering import demand. 

Last month's uptick signals increasing price momentum in global food markets. While the index remains well below its 160 peak in 2022, sustained upward pressure in global food prices could reignite inflationary pressures. 

Implications:

• Fragile States: A renewed price surge could spark food insecurity and social unrest in low-income, import-dependent nations.

In the U.S., the Trump administration needs to place a larger emphasis on strengthening local food supply chains to mitigate external supply shocks. That means know your local rancher and farmer, as well as make plans for a backyard garden and chicken coop.

Readers have been well-informed about this inflection point...

Related:

• Global Food Prices Climb Toward Arab Spring-Era Highs Amid Trade War Turmoil

• Global Food Prices Are Creeping Up Again

. . . 

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 19:40

Global Food Prices Marching Higher Serves As Warning For 'Fragile States'

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' Food Price Index, a global benchmark for food commodity prices, registered its highest level since early 2023 in July. This marks a notable inflection point after a multi-year downward trend that followed the Covid and Russia-Ukraine war price spikes. 

The FAO Food Price Index averaged 130.1 in July, up 1.6% from June, driven primarily by sharp increases in meat and vegetable oil prices.

"The index tracks monthly changes in the international prices of a set of globally traded food commodities. In July, price increases in the meat and vegetable oil indices more than offset declines in the cereal, dairy and sugar indices," FAO wrote in its monthly report. 

The FAO Food Price Index has undergone a significant reversal since bottoming out in early 2024, following a downturn after the price spikes during Covid and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is now at its highest level since February 2023, up 43% from its early Covid-era lows, and will likely remain elevated into next year.

Here's a summary of the report:

• Headline Index: Averaged 130.1 (+1.6% MoM), driven by meat and vegetable oils. Still 18.8% below the March 2022 peak but 7.6% above July 2024.

• Cereals (106.5, -0.8% MoM): Wheat & sorghum prices fell on new harvests; maize & barley rose. Rice (-1.8%) declined on ample supply and weak demand.

• Vegetable Oils (166.8, +7.1% MoM): 3-year high. Palm oil up on strong demand; soy oil supported by biofuel sector; sunflower oil higher on Black Sea supply tightness; rapeseed oil down on new EU crop.

• Meat (127.3, +1.2% MoM): Record high. Bovine & ovine prices surged on China/U.S. demand; poultry edged higher as Brazil regained AI-free status; pig meat fell on oversupply & weak EU demand.

• Dairy (155.3, -0.1% MoM): First drop since April 2024. Butter & milk powders down on abundant supply; cheese prices up on strong Asia/Near East demand & tighter EU exports.

• Sugar (103.3, -0.2% MoM): Fifth monthly decline on expectations of 2025/26 production rebound (Brazil, India, Thailand), partly offset by recovering import demand. 

Last month's uptick signals increasing price momentum in global food markets. While the index remains well below its 160 peak in 2022, sustained upward pressure in global food prices could reignite inflationary pressures. 

Implications:

• Fragile States: A renewed price surge could spark food insecurity and social unrest in low-income, import-dependent nations.

In the U.S., the Trump administration needs to place a larger emphasis on strengthening local food supply chains to mitigate external supply shocks. That means know your local rancher and farmer, as well as make plans for a backyard garden and chicken coop.

Readers have been well-informed about this inflection point...

Related:

• Global Food Prices Climb Toward Arab Spring-Era Highs Amid Trade War Turmoil

• Global Food Prices Are Creeping Up Again

. . . 

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 19:40

5 Things To Know About Trump's Order Banning Political Debanking

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning politicized debanking is intended to reverse what some analysts say is a trend of banks and payment services refusing service to people and companies for political, religious, or ideological reasons. 

Advocates against political debanking cite cases of Christians and conservatives who they say have been victims of this process. This includes allegations by Christian organizations including Tennessee-based nonprofit Indigenous Advance Ministries, as well as Sam Brownback, the chairman of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), and the president himself.

Speaking to bank executives at the World Economic Forum in January, Trump said, “I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America.”

Many conservative groups expressed support for this executive order. 

“Everyone needs access to basic financial services,” Brian Knight, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a leading advocate against ideological debanking, told The Epoch Times.

“No American should have to worry that they could lose their bank account or have a payment declined because of their religious or political beliefs.”

Banks have denied that they have taken part in political debanking.

“We don’t close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,” Patricia Wexler, a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase, told The Epoch Times in a statement.

“We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.”

A Bank of America spokesperson told The Epoch Times in January: “We serve more than 70 million clients and we welcome conservatives. We are required to follow extensive government rules and regulations that sometimes result in decisions to exit client relationships. We never close accounts for political reasons and don’t have a political litmus test.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing advocacy group, criticized efforts by groups including Alliance Defending Freedom, calling them “an ongoing crusade to force private businesses to adhere to conservative Christian theology, in part by spreading the false narrative that private sector banks have been dropping conservative religious clients since the Obama administration.”

Trump’s executive order seeks to reorient federal regulators and law enforcement away from practices that may have supported political debanking and toward actions that will actively oppose it. 

Here are five key takeaways from the order.

1. Regulators Drop ‘Reputational Risk’

The order directs federal regulators to stop using criteria such as “reputational risk,” which some banks say have been used to pressure them to cancel customers whose political or religious views government officials don’t like.

Some concerned shareholders say that banks that consider political views in deciding who they will serve also creates risks. One case in point, says Jerry Bowyer, CEO of Bowyer Research and an advocate for shareholders and customers against political debanking, is Trump’s allegation that several banks closed his accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol.

“Just think about that—you debanked someone who might be the President of the United States,” Bowyer told The Epoch Times. “That doesn’t sound like risk management to me; that sounds like courting risk.”

“Turns out that it was,” he said.

Bank regulators have already taken steps to remove “reputational risk” from their criteria. In June, the Federal Reserve announced that reputational risk will no longer be a component of its bank supervision process, and said it was working with other regulatory agencies to assist them in also dropping this criterion.

2. Investigations of Unlawful Debanking to Commence

The executive order requires federal banking regulators to investigate complaints of political debanking and pass any cases on to the U.S. attorney general’s office. Penalties for violations could include fines and consent decrees, as well as reinstating any customers who were unlawfully cancelled.

This could include not only persons who have been refused service for ideological reasons but also companies.

Operation Choke Point, which was enacted under the Obama administration, was a case in which regulators allegedly pressured banks to refuse service to industries like gun retailers and payday lenders, treating them as high-risk entities.

A more recent version of this was Citibank’s policy, which started in 2018 but ended in June of this year, to refuse banking services to gun stores that sold to customers under the age of 21, which effectively prohibited business with much of the industry.

3. Financial Privacy Also a Focus

Trump’s executive order also urges a federal investigation into alleged warrantless data mining of customers’ accounts by Bank of America (BOA) to hand over information to law enforcement regarding customers who traveled to Washington D.C., shopped at sporting goods stores that sold guns like Bass Pro Shops or Cabela’s, or expressed conservative political views during the 2021 Capitol breach.

In May 2023, U.S. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a letter to BOA CEO Brian Moynihan that stated an FBI whistleblower charged that the bank “provided the FBI—voluntarily and without any legal process—with a list of individuals who had made transactions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and January 7, 2021,” and highlighted customers who bought firearms with a BOA credit card.

4. SBA to Reinstate Religious Organizations

Trump’s executive order also instructs the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to reinstate clients who have been denied loans or other services for political reasons.

Previously, the SBA had prohibited any group that was “principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling, or indoctrinating religion” from applying for Economic Injury Disaster Loans. 

The SBA ended this policy in July, in compliance with a 2016 Supreme Court decision in the case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, which stated that excluding religious organizations from government programs was a violation of the First Amendment.

5. State ‘Fair Access’ Laws

Several states have recently passed “fair access” banking laws that prohibit denying financial services by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions on political or religious grounds. Florida enacted such a law in 2023, and Tennessee did so in 2024.

Similar laws have been introduced in state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota, according to a legal analysis by law firm Latham & Watkins. 

The firm stated that critics of laws against political debanking “see such initiatives as an attack on environmental, social, and corporate-governance (ESG) policies in the financial system.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 19:15

5 Things To Know About Trump's Order Banning Political Debanking

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning politicized debanking is intended to reverse what some analysts say is a trend of banks and payment services refusing service to people and companies for political, religious, or ideological reasons. 

Advocates against political debanking cite cases of Christians and conservatives who they say have been victims of this process. This includes allegations by Christian organizations including Tennessee-based nonprofit Indigenous Advance Ministries, as well as Sam Brownback, the chairman of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), and the president himself.

Speaking to bank executives at the World Economic Forum in January, Trump said, “I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America.”

Many conservative groups expressed support for this executive order. 

“Everyone needs access to basic financial services,” Brian Knight, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a leading advocate against ideological debanking, told The Epoch Times.

“No American should have to worry that they could lose their bank account or have a payment declined because of their religious or political beliefs.”

Banks have denied that they have taken part in political debanking.

“We don’t close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,” Patricia Wexler, a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase, told The Epoch Times in a statement.

“We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.”

A Bank of America spokesperson told The Epoch Times in January: “We serve more than 70 million clients and we welcome conservatives. We are required to follow extensive government rules and regulations that sometimes result in decisions to exit client relationships. We never close accounts for political reasons and don’t have a political litmus test.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing advocacy group, criticized efforts by groups including Alliance Defending Freedom, calling them “an ongoing crusade to force private businesses to adhere to conservative Christian theology, in part by spreading the false narrative that private sector banks have been dropping conservative religious clients since the Obama administration.”

Trump’s executive order seeks to reorient federal regulators and law enforcement away from practices that may have supported political debanking and toward actions that will actively oppose it. 

Here are five key takeaways from the order.

1. Regulators Drop ‘Reputational Risk’

The order directs federal regulators to stop using criteria such as “reputational risk,” which some banks say have been used to pressure them to cancel customers whose political or religious views government officials don’t like.

Some concerned shareholders say that banks that consider political views in deciding who they will serve also creates risks. One case in point, says Jerry Bowyer, CEO of Bowyer Research and an advocate for shareholders and customers against political debanking, is Trump’s allegation that several banks closed his accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol.

“Just think about that—you debanked someone who might be the President of the United States,” Bowyer told The Epoch Times. “That doesn’t sound like risk management to me; that sounds like courting risk.”

“Turns out that it was,” he said.

Bank regulators have already taken steps to remove “reputational risk” from their criteria. In June, the Federal Reserve announced that reputational risk will no longer be a component of its bank supervision process, and said it was working with other regulatory agencies to assist them in also dropping this criterion.

2. Investigations of Unlawful Debanking to Commence

The executive order requires federal banking regulators to investigate complaints of political debanking and pass any cases on to the U.S. attorney general’s office. Penalties for violations could include fines and consent decrees, as well as reinstating any customers who were unlawfully cancelled.

This could include not only persons who have been refused service for ideological reasons but also companies.

Operation Choke Point, which was enacted under the Obama administration, was a case in which regulators allegedly pressured banks to refuse service to industries like gun retailers and payday lenders, treating them as high-risk entities.

A more recent version of this was Citibank’s policy, which started in 2018 but ended in June of this year, to refuse banking services to gun stores that sold to customers under the age of 21, which effectively prohibited business with much of the industry.

3. Financial Privacy Also a Focus

Trump’s executive order also urges a federal investigation into alleged warrantless data mining of customers’ accounts by Bank of America (BOA) to hand over information to law enforcement regarding customers who traveled to Washington D.C., shopped at sporting goods stores that sold guns like Bass Pro Shops or Cabela’s, or expressed conservative political views during the 2021 Capitol breach.

In May 2023, U.S. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a letter to BOA CEO Brian Moynihan that stated an FBI whistleblower charged that the bank “provided the FBI—voluntarily and without any legal process—with a list of individuals who had made transactions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and January 7, 2021,” and highlighted customers who bought firearms with a BOA credit card.

4. SBA to Reinstate Religious Organizations

Trump’s executive order also instructs the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to reinstate clients who have been denied loans or other services for political reasons.

Previously, the SBA had prohibited any group that was “principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling, or indoctrinating religion” from applying for Economic Injury Disaster Loans. 

The SBA ended this policy in July, in compliance with a 2016 Supreme Court decision in the case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, which stated that excluding religious organizations from government programs was a violation of the First Amendment.

5. State ‘Fair Access’ Laws

Several states have recently passed “fair access” banking laws that prohibit denying financial services by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions on political or religious grounds. Florida enacted such a law in 2023, and Tennessee did so in 2024.

Similar laws have been introduced in state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota, according to a legal analysis by law firm Latham & Watkins. 

The firm stated that critics of laws against political debanking “see such initiatives as an attack on environmental, social, and corporate-governance (ESG) policies in the financial system.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/08/2025 - 19:15