Zero Hedge

In Red Sea Crisis, Somaliland Seizes Leverage For US Recognition

In Red Sea Crisis, Somaliland Seizes Leverage For US Recognition

Authored by Dan M. Ford via Responsible Statecraft,

The president of Somaliland took advantage of the geopolitical and global economic turmoil caused by the Iran War to visit Washington this week in an effort to advocate for American recognition of Somaliland and for the deepening of economic ties between the two.

President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, known as Irro, made a public appearance at the Hudson Institute on September 14, where he argued that his country's three-and-a-half decade run as a secure, self-governing actor warranted recognition from the United States. Irro also said that, although he's "not a geologist," experts tell him his country has "everything" the U.S. could want in terms of critical minerals, which he'd be happy to provide the U.S. in exchange for deeper relations.

A self-proclaimed sovereign country widely considered to be part of Somalia by the international community, Somaliland has for decades struggled to gain recognition on the international stage. But Israel's unexpected decision in December 2025 to be the first government in the world to recognize Somaliland as an independent state has raised questions about which other countries might follow suit. Somaliland denies that recognition came as part of a quid-pro-quo arrangement, but, shortly after the recognition, it was reported that Somaliland will be forming a security partnership with Israel, potentially including offering the Israelis military access to its territory.

If there was ever a moment for Somaliland officials to make the case for recognition, now is indeed the time. Somaliland sits in one of the world's most geostrategically significant locations. With roughly 530 miles of coastline along the Gulf of Aden - which connects to the Red Sea through the vitally important Bab el-Mandeb Strait - Somaliland is at the heart of a crucial shipping route and on the edge of the expansive battlefield of the Iran War.

Somaliland's major port city of Berbera is located just across the Gulf from the Yemeni coast, putting Somaliland's major economic engine within striking distance of potential Houthi attacks.

The Houthi rebels - an Iran-aligned militant group fighting the Yemeni government and its Saudi backers in Yemen's devastating civil war - have played a major role in expanding the footprint of the ongoing Iran War. The Houthis have repeatedly targeted ships traversing the Red Sea as well as energy and logistics infrastructure in Saudi Arabia.

Their stunning gains along Yemen's southwest coast in recent weeks - including the capture of the major port city of Mocha, near Bab el-Mandeb - mean the Houthis are increasingly in control of the Yemeni coastline along the strait, which gives the group added leverage. Indeed, if a lasting peace deal remains elusive, Iran could aim to use the Houthis' position to effectively shut down shipping through Bab el-Mandeb, which is only about 18 miles wide at its narrowest point.

This would essentially mirror the Iranian strategy on the Strait of Hormuz, which sits on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula. By shutting down shipping through both Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, the Iranians and their allies would essentially bring to a halt nearly all sea trade connecting the Middle East to the Indian Ocean, worsening the ongoing global supply shock, especially as it relates to energy. The greater the pain on the world's pocketbook, the greater the likelihood, the Iranians believe, that pressure will mount to a point where the United States and Israel have no choice but to negotiate an honest end to the war.

Irro's argument for recognition is straightforward. Somaliland has been operating as a functional and relatively secure country since claiming independence from Somalia in 1991. It has its own military and police force, and has a coast guard that patrols its waters along the Gulf of Aden, defending against potential threats from pirates and other nefarious actors on the seas. In an appeal to traditional Western appreciation for democracy, Irro argues that Somaliland's ability to hold consistent (though often delayed) elections is another indicator of its ability to govern well.

But the Hudson Institute appearance was unsteady. Irro, aged 70, giggled seemingly uncontrollably throughout, and struggled to articulate a vision for the broader region. At one point, he compared neighboring Sudan to Venezuela, saying - like the Latin American country - Sudan is "too far away" from Somaliland for him to provide an opinion on its civil war, despite the fact that the two are only about 460 miles apart.

Cameron Hudson, a former U.S. intelligence official specializing in Africa, said on X that Irro "did himself and his country a major disservice by being unprepared or incapable of being able to respond convincingly to serious topics that will determine his country's future. It was like watching an African Biden."

Last Tuesday, Irro held a breakfast with a bipartisan group of members of Congress from both chambers as well as a group of ambassadors. The president also met individually with several members of Congress, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), with whom he reportedly discussed a wide variety of issues pertaining to security, trade, and investment.

In addition to meeting with American officials, Irro met with members of the Israeli embassy in Washington, including the country's ambassador.

Ever since Trump took office, Somaliland has seen an opportunity to push for American recognition. Last year, the breakaway state offered the United States the opportunity to open up a military base along its Gulf coast in exchange for recognition, which the Trump administration reportedly seriously considered. Ultimately, though, concern over how such recognition would complicate U.S. relations with nearby governments in the region ultimately dissuaded the American president from agreeing to the arrangement. Such recognition would also hurt American relations with Somalia, which remains a major counterterrorism partner in the fight against the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab.

Nevertheless, American military presence in the region appears to be growing. Recent reporting suggests the U.S. has sent military personnel to Somaliland's eastern neighbor Puntland, another region claiming independence from Somalia.

Despite a fraying federal system and deep insecurity, Somalia is still a member of both the African Union and Arab League, allowing it to maintain close ties with its regional neighbors. U.S. recognition of Somaliland would risk hurting American relations with this broad base of countries across the Middle East and Africa.

In terms of what Somaliland is willing to provide the U.S. for recognition (or at least for enhanced relations), Irro told Semafor he would consider offering greater military access - including potentially building a military base (as he has offered before) - as well as access to the country's deep resources. In an appeal directed right at Trump, Irro also suggested the possibility of naming the airport in the major port city of Berbera, which has one of the longest runways on the continent, after the American president.

Still, it'll be a challenge for Somaliland's leadership to persuade the United States to recognize it while Somalia remains an American partner in counterterrorism activity, and while the wider regional community opposes Somaliland's independence. But if either of these factors change, and if the Gulf region remains a hotbed for conflict, global geopolitical and military positioning will, at the very least, keep the conversation going.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 03:30

China Floods Europe With Cheap Cars, Grabs Record Market Share As Domestic Brands Buckle

China Floods Europe With Cheap Cars, Grabs Record Market Share As Domestic Brands Buckle

Europe is becoming a glaring case study in how globalist leaders can destroy an entire automotive manufacturing base by flooding the continent with cheap Chinese cars and sending domestic automakers spiraling into crisis, while their policies simultaneously spark what Nomura analysts have said will be political blowback over an 18-month election cycle, with shifts toward the right already visible in recent German elections.

Bloomberg News cites new data from Dataforce showing that Chinese automakers captured a record share of Europe's car market in August by flooding the continent with cheap hybrids that undercut domestic brands.

Chinese brands, including BYD, accounted for nearly 12% of European new-car sales that month, according to Dataforce. The largest surge in sales came from hybrids: one in four sales overall and roughly one in three plug-in hybrids.

Chinese hybrids avoid the additional EU duties imposed on imported EVs, giving BYD a competitive advantage on an energy-stricken continent.

EV and hybrid sales jumped 27% in August, offsetting declines in combustion-only cars and lifting the overall market by 4.6%.

The increasing Chinese auto footprint inside Europe is becoming increasingly alarming when viewed from a Goldman chart posted to clients earlier today. 

Germany's auto industry crisis has refused to end as Volkswagen last week lowered its operating-margin forecast, reflecting a write-down on its Porsche stake and soft Chinese demand. Layoffs and production-line wind-downs are also mounting for European automakers.

Stellantis recently planned to halt production of the electric and hybrid Fiat 500 at Italy's Mirafiori plant during the final two weeks of October. Output could reach 60,000 vehicles this year, compared with an original forecast of around 100,000.

Meanwhile, Germany is preparing economic security proposals that could include tariffs on Chinese hybrids as its auto industrial base remains in turmoil.

The problem with Europe's auto industrial base, amid what can only be viewed as a planned demolition by the continent's globalist leaders, is its lack of readiness to retool for wartime, as the US is currently doing (see the GM report from last week), when civilian production quickly converts to weapons manufacturing. 

Europe is a case study for the world in what not to do, as its globalist leaders appear to be at the mercy of Beijing. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 02:45

Anti-Immigration AfD Now The Most Popular Party In Key Western German State In A National Vote

Anti-Immigration AfD Now The Most Popular Party In Key Western German State In A National Vote

Via Remix News,

The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is known for its strength in the east of the country, but its popularity in Western Germany is also only growing, including in the country's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia.

This latest Forsa poll points to incredible growth of the AfD in a very short time in the voter-rich Western German state. It is now the most popular party in the entire state when measuring a national vote and would earn 24 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Christian Democrats (CDU) fell four points to 22 percent, the lowest value Forsa has ever recorded for the party in the state. The previous low was 23 percent in December 2021. However, in order to avoid confusion, it must be noted that the Forsa poll asked two very distinct questions. One question asked voters in North Rhine-Westphalia how they would vote at the federal level and also how they would vote at the state level. At the state level, voters in North Rhine-Westphalia would still back the CDU over the AfD; however, the CDU's advantage over the AfD has narrowed to just seven percentage points ahead of the April state election.

For Minister-President Hendrik Wüst, the drop in support for his CDU party comes at an especially sensitive time. Wüst recently became the only top CDU politician who called for the government to begin the process of investigating a possible ban of the AfD party. He is also seen a strong contender to replace Merz as chancellor.

The latest figures show that if a state election were held this Sunday, the CDU under Wüst would receive 29 percent, down from 32 percent in Forsa's April survey. The AfD has risen two points to 22 percent. The gap between the two parties has therefore fallen from 12 to seven points in just a few months.

About a year ago, however, the lead was far larger, at 22 percentage points. In July 2025, 38 percent of respondents favored the CDU while the AfD stood at a mere 16 percent.

While this may be of some consolation to Wüst that he is still more popular than the CDU federal branch, the fact that the AfD is now leading in the state at the federal level represents a massive sea change in German politics.

North Rhine-Westphalia is one of the most diverse of all of Germany - outside of the city-states like Berlin - featuring 35 to 38 percent of the population with a migration background. It is also a state with numerous industries hit hard by Germany's ongoing economic downturn.

The three recent state elections in eastern Germany have become a "turning point" for the CDU after a sharp setback in Saxony-Anhalt, the party's failure to enter the state parliament in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern two weeks later, and disappointing results in Berlin. Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he was "deeply shocked" about the vote in Saxony-Anhalt and spoke of consequences. He also noted that he took responsibility for the election outcomes but would not resign the chancellorship or his role as chairman of the CDU party.

The question now is whether widespread dissatisfaction with Merz will continue to weaken the CDU's prospects across Germany.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 02:00

The Muse Is Loose: Inside Zuckerberg's $100-A-Month Bet That You'll Let Facebook Run Your Life

The Muse Is Loose: Inside Zuckerberg's $100-A-Month Bet That You'll Let Facebook Run Your Life

Those lucky enough to be living under a rock in the past month, would be surprised to learn out that after trading near the year's lows in mid-August, Facebook Meta stock just hit a 2026 high, and it is all thanks to the constant buzz over the release of its Muse AI agent two weeks ago, which has not only taken the tech world by storm, but sent Meta shares an additional 21% higher in that period vs just 1% for the S&P.

What is it?

Muse, which was launched on September 8, 2026, is what Meta calls "the world's first personal AI agent built for everyone." Instead of just chatting, it carries out everyday tasks such as purchasing, travel, email and organizing for you, with reported pricing of $20 and $100 monthly besides a generous free tier.

Two weeks after launch it's growing fast, amid a broad range of reactions from euphoria, to skepticism, to outright revulsion. Gravitating toward the latter end of that spectrum, none other than Amazon earlier this week announced it would ban the use of Muse on its retail website. Ironically, that may have only helped Meta, whose downloads in the first two weeks since launch have surpassed none other than ChatGPT itself.

The market reaction has also been rapid and intense: not only has it helped push Meta stock into the stratosphere, it has once again prompted "disruption" fears, sending banking and various "consumer inertia" stocks sharply lower amid fears that Muse, running in the background, could make the drudgery of moving one's bank account, canceling existing subscriptions and generally anything with "high switching costs", a thing of the past. 

To that point, in its end of day wrap, Goldman yesterday said that "the most talked about theme on our desk today was the impact of Agentic AI post Meta Muse and the shorting of “Consumer Inertia" names. Our basket, GSXUSWCH (-2.58% today), which has been one of our most actively traded baskets in recent sessions, consists of stocks in industries where customer retention is supported by "behavioral, operational, contractual or financial switching costs." ...in other words, services that are hard to cancel (unless you have Agentic AI do it for you)." Goldman went on to point out some of the biggest losers from this basket, including PLNT, NYT, SCHW, ALL, and INTU.

Yet through it all, Muse has continued to climb in the App Store to currently the #1 most downloaded free app in the US, and at  increasing download volume compared to a week ago. The combination of virality and Meta’s strong distribution platform (the company reportedly reaches over 2 billion users) make the buzz around Muse quite palpable.

Following the accelerated model progression of Muse Spark with big gains in agentic and multimodel capabilities in recent months, Meta is also shipping quickly around Muse with a series of innovations within just two weeks from launch. Meta launched a beta for Muse outbound calls to US businesses (where it may have had some help from old-school call centers), opened access for developers to build Muse connectors, launched Muse for Mac, and added Shop Pay for agentic checkout, among other improvements. Earlier today, Zuckerberg even introduced a Muse Charm pendant during Meta Connect. 

In a note discussing the launch of Muse, JPMorgan's Dough Anmuth (full note available to pro subs), wrote that Muse’s early traction reflects three key drivers:

  • Strong product-market fit, including leading agentic performance, ease of use, and an emphasis on privacy/safety (good luck with that).

  • a generous free tier that reduces friction for trial and repeat usage;
  • Meta’s scaled distribution advantage.

While it is still early, JPM believes that Muse has the potential to become the most widely used consumer AI application since ChatGPT. The bank also believes that Meta is currently focused on learning how people are using Muse and improving the product, while also increasing consumer adoption and engagement. Opening up access for developers to build Muse connectors last week was also significant as it is the first of likely many steps to bring businesses into Muse.

As tens of millions, and then potentially hundreds of millions of businesses, ultimately have their own agents on Muse, the bank expects Muse transactions to be handled less by browsing or calling, and more through agent-to-agent interactions. At that point, Meta will be able to monetize on a take-rate or commission model - or based on whatever the business’s goals are - similar to how it monetizes in advertising today.

Some more details

To justify its claims that Muse adoption is early and encouraging, JPMorgan writes that Muse has "shown strong early signs of virality and consumer adoption," with Muse reaching the #1 most downloaded free app in the U.S. and Canada Apple App Stores...

... and daily downloads in the U.S. now exceeding all other Meta Family of Apps.

JPMorgan believes Meta’s near-term priority with Muse is to continue to drive adoption and engagement, with monetization beyond heavy-user subs likely not coming until at least 2027. As such, Meta is already starting to push Muse via ad inventory on Instagram and Facebook, and is offering 1 Billion Muse Tokens for inviting friends to Muse in addition to launching a national TV ad campaign.

Additionally, Muse’s generous 100M free weekly tokens will likely be a core driver of sustained engagement as it compares favorably to Grok Bot ($30+/mo) and Gemini Spark ($20/mo), while Instinct (free) is still invite-only given compute constraints.

At its Q2 earnings, Mark framed consumer personal agents as a potentially massive market, with billions of people likely to use agents that understand their goals and work 24/7 on their behalf across health, hobbies, finances, productivity, relationships, & more. Meta is positioning Muse as clearly differentiated from traditional chatbots by emphasizing its ability to take action rather than simply answer questions, supported by computer-use capabilities & connections to the apps people use daily.

In addition to the existing library of Connectors (incl. Gmail, Spotify, Peloton, Opentable, and more), Meta recently opened access for developers to build Muse Connectors for their apps and services, and Muse can also guide users through creating custom Connectors for unsupported services.

Early Muse use cases suggest the product broadly aligns with the vision Meta laid out, with users sharing examples across commerce, product research, restaurant bookings, travel planning, email/text drafting, and other multi-step workflows.

While JPM expects Meta to prioritize adoption and engagement over monetization near term (consistent with its historic playbook), especially since Meta - like XAi - has excess compute among its many data centers - many of these workflows also provide a clear line of sight to longer-term monetization via:

  1. a take-rate/ commission model based on transactions/objectives that Muse facilitates (e.g. shopping checkouts, reservations, flight/hotel bookings, lead generation)
  2. subscriptions for incremental usage. It will take time for small businesses and larger enterprises to launch agents on Muse, but agent-to-agent interactions will likely form the foundation for Meta’s monetization.

Also, while Muse and other agents will surely face pushback from online platforms and marketplaces early on, e.g. Amazon has blocked Muse access, JPMorgan still expects broader ecosystem participation over time as agents prove to be incremental sources of traffic and transactions.

Turning to the market, JPM's Anmuth writes that "on a very tactical, short-term basis, we believe that some investors became more cautious heading into this week on the view that Muse had already launched, Watermelon would likely come after Meta Connect, & OpenAI would release its competing agent product this week, all of which may have contributed to Monday’s outsized move in Meta shares." More broadly, he expects Muse adoption and engagement to continue to ramp, with Meta beginning to prove out AI returns—and leadership—beyond its core advertising platform, with a Total Addressable Market potentially in the tens of trillions of dollars. 

Of course, it's not just unicorns and rainbows. 

A deeper dive reveals that at its core, Muse is merely an updated and modernized version of OpenClaw, the first real agent, and one which Meta's highly overpaid AI chief Alexandr Wang "reverse engineered" and repurposed for Meta's massive audience, using its vast distribution platform to capture agentic market share while taking advantage of Meta's massive excess compute. 

An X user explains why this matters:

The bottleneck in personal AI agents was never the model. It was the signup flow.

Nat Friedman said something worth sitting with today: Meta built Muse from scratch, but it's heavily inspired by OpenClaw, and after using OpenClaw in January he bought hundreds of Mac minis for his team because they fell in love with it.

Here's the mechanism. OpenClaw is a self-hosted agent framework that Peter Steinberger and dozens of contributors built in under six months. It crossed 100,000 GitHub stars in its first week and has passed 387,000 stars, one of the fastest growing repos in GitHub's history. You run it on your own server, point it at any model, and it manages memory, browsing, messaging and cron jobs through plain markdown files: SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md, USER.md.

Muse, which Meta shipped September 8, uses that same file structure. Its own agent confirmed it when asked directly: it runs on those exact files. Meta didn't need to out-engineer the open source version. It needed to remove the server, the API keys and the config, and hand three billion people a one minute signup instead.

The result: Muse pulled 902,000 downloads in its first six days, ahead of Meta AI's own 773,000 in the same window, and META stock jumped more than 12% on the numbers. Nous Research's Hermes Agent is chasing the same self-hosted lane and can import OpenClaw's settings directly. Steinberger is now joining OpenAI to work on agents for everyone, and OpenClaw is moving to a foundation to stay independent.

I've watched this movie before. Docker didn't invent containers. Slack didn't invent chat. The lab that wins is rarely the one that proves the concept. It's the one that removes the last piece of friction between the concept and a normal person's Tuesday.

The hidden bottleneck was distribution wearing a technical costume. My take for founders: if your product needs a server and an SSH session just to try it, you're one onboarding flow away from a much bigger company doing it for you.

The problem with rushing out an optimized version of the original agent is that Meta appears to have steamrolled over some of the most basic tenets, such as security and privacy. Regarding the first, this is what ArsTechnica said

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has gone to great lengths to hype the security of its new AI assistant, Muse, claiming it is “built from the ground up for privacy and security.” A zero-day vulnerability that gives locally run apps and terminal commands complete control of the agent raises serious doubts. Further raising questions, Amazon on Sunday began blocking Muse from its site.

... For Muse to do [the things it does], users must first give it access to their accounts. This includes authenticating the assistant to each service and, because the app runs on macOS, giving it permissions to a broad range of operating system-restricted device resources, like writing files to disk, accessing the mic and camera, and monitoring location and calendars. Apple has spent years developing these defenses to prevent installed apps or commands entered into the terminal from accessing these resources, clearly because the company considers them a security threat. Muse completely undoes these default measures.

The zero-day allows any app or terminal command to gain access to the token that authenticates users to their Muse account. Meta developers designed the assistant so that any locally installed app or executed code, regardless of the macOS permissions it has, can change a long list of undocumented settings. Most of them are fairly innocuous, such as controlling dark mode. One setting, however, is anything but innocuous. It allows processes to change the endpoint where transcription occurs. Normally, it’s a server address operated by Meta. Attackers can exploit this flaw by changing the location to their own endpoint. Once that happens, the attackers have the token that gives complete control over the Muse account.

...

"To me, the bar is infinitely higher in terms of the security of these apps. They don’t have to be perfect, but when you take a look at Muse, it’s like they didn’t, in my opinion, think about security, which is really worrisome,” Wardle said. “At the very least, they should be thinking about security from the very start, and they are just not.”

Which brings us to privacy, which at best was an afterthought for Muse. IBM Vice Chair Gary Cohn told Yahoo Finance that he is not ready to use the service because of privacy concerns. He has good reason for that, as this excerpt reveals: 

I installed Muse on my iPhone and then on a Mac mini I have basically for this very purpose. I asked it to write a bio of me from what it knew about me. After some back and forth where it told me it only knew my name, I suggested it use its browser to find some info. It did, and it came back with a reasonable bio. It isn’t one I would ever use, but that wasn’t the point. I just wanted it to do its first research on me.

I then asked it to suggest things it might do to help me, based on what it knows about me. It suggested researching topics for articles, helping book podcast guests, and creating a morning briefing each day on stories and events it thinks I might want to write about.

Then, yesterday, I was having a conversation with my Primary Technology podcast co-host, Stephen Robles, about the new iPhones. Moments later, I got a push notification from Muse suggesting that the conversation we were having would make for a good column and offered to put together research for me to write about. It even flagged a message from my editor about having a column ready for Monday.

Not only had I not asked it to do that sort of thing, I never gave it permission to read my messages. In fact, I remember explicitly choosing not to let it have access to my messages, calendar, and other personal information.

Stranger still was what happened when I asked Muse how it knew. It told me it didn’t have access to my message history at all. Instead, it said the Muse app on my Mac was simply passing along the text of incoming notification banners.

“When a notification pops up on your paired Mac, the text of that notification gets relayed to me—basically what you’d see in the banner itself,” Muse told me.

It went even further. “I can’t open your Messages app, scroll threads, or read history. It’s the incoming notification stream only, not access to your texts.” Except that wasn’t true.

And then, there are plain old glitches as this op-ed from Inc shows:

If you haven’t read my piece about Muse uploading all my private text messages and then hallucinating an explanation, you probably should. The short version, however, is that if you give it Full Disk Access on a Mac, it will do things way beyond what you’ve asked it to do. And I’m a pretty tech-savvy person, and I did not give Muse permission to access my messages, and I never once asked it to perform a task that would have required it to do that. Still, it started sending me push notifications about texts I was receiving from my editor as well as my podcast co-host.

When I asked Muse how it knew what I had been talking about, it told me it could see notification previews from my Mac. When I pushed further, it told me it couldn’t give me “the exact plumbing.” It turns out the robot just made that up. The real answer was much worse.

Adding insult to injury, there is a clear incentive to dissemble and prevaricate from day one, an immediate warning sign which got Muse blocked from Amazon.

Looking at the shipping version of the Muse app, I noticed that the code includes evidence that its automated browser goes out of its way to not look like an automated browser. Muse also launches Chrome in a way that disables automation indicators and injects code that hides navigator.webdriver—the standardized property that tells a website a browser is being controlled by automation. 

Muse also creates fake values in Chrome for things like browser plugins. That’s designed to create a browser fingerprint that appears more like one belonging to a human, not a robot. It even checks pages for signs that it has been detected or blocked, including CAPTCHAs, “verify you are human,” “access denied,” and Cloudflare’s “Ray ID.” This is especially notable given Amazon’s claim that Muse does not identify itself as an AI agent when visiting its store.

* * * 

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Muse is secretly reading everyone’s messages or routinely bypassing macOS security. I still haven’t gotten an answer as to how it was reading my messages with Full Disk Access turned off, but I’d be happy to dig into it with anyone from Meta that wants to help. I am, however, suggesting that trust is the single most important asset any company has, and Meta has a giant Muse-sized trust problem.

Assuming one is ok with all of this, the next question is how much will all this cost Meta?

As WCCFTech explained , to eliminate privacy concerns, Muse runs inside a dedicated and isolated cloud computer - a Virtual Machine or VM - that contains its own browser to securely house your data and credentials. A second guardrail, called a Sentinel, continuously monitors the environment, and ensures that the agent does not finalize transactions without both Sentinel's approval and your explicit confirmation.

Referencing an X post, the outlet notes that Meta has promised each Muse user a dedicated VM, replete with 2 vCPUs, 8GB of RAM, and 100GB of SSD. Assuming the personal agent scales to 100 million users within 1 year - entirely plausible especially as it is already topping app download leaderboards - Meta would require at least 1.58 million AMD Ryzen EPYC CPUs, where each such CPU has 126 cores.

Of course, Meta can reduce this number by heavily sharing CPUs between active users. If 10 percent of Muse userbase is active and running tasks at any given time, the CPU load falls to 158,000 AMD Ryzen EPYC units. Of course, to maintain network scalability, Meta might have to target a 50 percent userload, which then translates to 0.79 million AMD Ryzen EPYC CPUs. As such, a lot rides on the overall compute architecture that Meta follows.

The memory and storage conundrum, however, is trickier still. Since your personal persistent Muse VM has to be available 24/7, 100 million users can entail 100 petabyte of RAM and 10,000 petabyte of SSD. Of course, not all users will consume this quantum of storage.

For obvious reasons, these compute requirements are quite strenuous, and can rapidly scale if Meta allows access to Muse via WhatsApp and Instagram. It is hardly a surprise, therefore, that Meta appears to be going all-in on compute in recent weeks and months, becoming the primary co-developer and lead deployment partner of Arm AGI CPU in March 2026. The tech giant also added tens of millions of AWS Graviton cores to its compute portfolio in April 2026.

Taking a closer look at the math reveals some truly startling numbers as laid out here:

Every Muse user is supposed to get their own cloud PC. 2 vCPUs, 8GB RAM, 100GB disk. 

If Meta actually leaves those boxes on, user growth turns into a chip and memory problem.  that’s what i'm trying to size

Muse is 13 days old and US only
App Store downloads are still under 1M on iOS; Add WhatsApp, web, android, mac and you might have 1-2.5M accounts. Most of those are not hot machines. Call live VMs closer to a million 

Ok, where does this go:
- stays messy and US-heavy: maybe 30M in a year
- whatsApp works: 25M in six months, 100M in a year
- they force it through whatsapp and insta: 250M

Let's go with 100M, the middle scenario

Those EPYCs have 126 cores. Two vCPUs per user means about 60 VMs per chip if nobody is sharing. Share them and you fit more, and it is less of a private machine.

if you leave them 1:1 and always on:
today → tens of thousands of chips, 14 PB RAM  
25 million → 400k chips, 200 PB  
100 million → 1.6 million chips, 800 PB RAM, ~1.6 GW  
250 million → 4 million chips, 2 EB  
1 billion → 16 million chips, 8 EB

$AMD
Ships on the order of 10 million server chips this year. The whole industry about 39 million. 
100 million dedicated Muse users is a visible piece of AMD’s year, and they were already getting called sold out. Next die has more cores, which is how you stuff more VMs on the same chip.

CPU time can be shared. That RAM stays reserved if the files are supposed to live on the box. 2026 DRAM is already spoken for, HBM first. 100M users would lock up about 1% of a year’s DRAM bits. A billion users, 10%.

Meta’s own power plan is 7 GW this year, 14 next. Training and ads are already in that.

The paid tiers do not cover it. 
Ten million people on $20 is $2.4 billion a year. 
Last quarter Meta did $60.8 billion, almost all ads, and $31 billion of capex. 
Full year capex is $130-145 billion. 100 million 
VMs is $30-50 billion of hardware if you actually build them.

The conclusion: "either a lot of those VMs get frozen when idle, or this does not scale as advertised"

To summarize: judging by the initial reception, the Muse has been very successful, and as of this moment, it has enough momentum to become the most popular agent in the world. However, those using it should be aware of three things: they will have no privacy, and virtually no security (good luck getting customer services at the free tier when Muse goes rogue and deletes all your emails or spends all your money on pizza deliveries). Worse, the glitches of this rushed product will only emerge over time. And then the question is how much will all this cost Meta, which is already neck deep in capex, and its CDS is soaring to all time wides, outperforming just the debt basket cases that are SpaceX and Oracle. 

Which leads us to the last question: after the initial phase of curiosity fades, how many people will be willing to pay Zuck $20 (or $100) every month to run their lives?

The answer will determine if Zuckerberg's latest toy will become what JPMorgan said could be the "most widely used consumer AI application since ChatGPT", or if a better name for Muse would have simply been Metaverse 2.0... and its trademark bottomless money pit.

More in the full JPMorgan note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/24/2026 - 00:55

Something Has Changed And World War Over Ukraine Is Back On The Table

Something Has Changed And World War Over Ukraine Is Back On The Table

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

The eyes of the world have been fixated on the war in Iran for the past six months, meanwhile, the single-most dangerous flashpoint on the planet has gone mostly ignored. Until, that is, waves of Ukrainian drone strikes activated a run on global diesel markets. Suddenly, everyone is paying attention again…

Russia is the second largest diesel exporter in the world next to the United States, supplying around 12% of total global exports (the US supplies 22% of exports). To put this in perspective, only 10% of global diesel exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz under normal conditions – And that supply is coming from seven different oil producing nations including Iran.

After western sanctions, Russian diesel shipments have gone primarily to Turkey, Brazil, India and China. However, because Russian supplies continued to circulate on global markets, these countries did not have to draw fuel from alternative sources.

Conditions have now changed, and not for the better. Constant Ukrainianian drone strikes on Russian refineries have forced the Kremlin to stop all diesel exports and retain their existing supply for the population and the war effort.

If you want to know why diesel prices have been hit hard since July, Russian export cuts are the reason. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has steadily climbed since July according to independent satellite tracking confirmation (anyone using AIS transponder data alone will have a low and inaccurate count). It’s the Russian refinery issue that has inflated diesel prices in recent months.

With Russian sources completely cut off, multiple nations will have to draw from other producers. Meaning, the pie is shrinking, but everyone still wants the same size slice they’ve always had. If the US also stops diesel exports in response, it would be a disaster for foreign markets and result in true supply shortages (Europe would be hard hit; half of their diesel imports come from the US).

In 2024 I questioned why the Ukrainians kept going after odd targets such as nuclear early warning radar stations rather than key resources like oil refineries in order to stop Russia’s attrition strategy. Well, it looks like the Ukrainians finally figured it out.

Russia’s attrition strategy has been highly effective in grinding down Ukraine’s troop strength (to the point that they were recruiting mostly men over 40), but the key flaw of a slow moving front line and a protracted offensive is that it requires a large stockpile of resources. Ukraine’s drone attacks have a low success rate, but if they send a thousand UAVs to attack a refinery and a couple get through, then that’s still a win in the long run because it drags down Russia’s lumbering attrition-based operation.

The Trump Administration has asked Ukraine to stop hitting Russian refineries due to the instability to global markets, but Zelensky has ignored the request. It’s not surprising; they’ve finally found a tactic that works.

Of course, now the rest of the world is being affected by diesel supply shortages when this was not the case a year ago. One would think the Europeans, who have been particularly throttled by price hikes on fuel and energy, would be in a rush to end the war. And maybe they are about to intervene, but not in the way we might hope…

I think it’s fair to say that the Ukraine war would have ended a long time ago had it not been for the interference of European governments propping up Ukraine and encouraging them to NOT make a deal. Ultimately, Russia is going to keep the Donbas region whether Ukraine likes it or not. But Zelensky refuses to accept this outcome, so, the war rages on much longer than it needs to.

The situation gets much more dangerous, though,with the push by European elites to put boots on the ground. They seem to want to start a world war. Beyond the diesel resource problem which puts a timetable on the war for both sides, European governments have increased troop movements to eastern borders and it’s starting to look like they’re getting ready for something big.

Poland has been building extensive trenches and fortifications using German combat engineers on the border of Belarus. Germany has established a 5000-man armored brigade in Lithuania, the first time the Germans have stationed permanent combat troops abroad since 1945. NATO has launched a 9th multinational battle group with regular exercises in Finland near the Russian border. Multiple nations are sending rotating brigades to Latvia, Romania and Estonia. Even the Canadians are sending troops.

Recent weeks have seen repeated Polish and Baltic fighter activations due to alleged drone or aircraft activity near alliance airspace. Allies are pre-positioning equipment and planning much larger stockpiles of ammunition and resources in frontline states. NATO has also published extensive contingency planning for the eastern flank.

There has been a surge in political and civil-preparedness messaging for civilians. Polish warnings about possible disguised drone/missile incidents. French measures to protect critical infrastructure after hybrid-attack briefings. German military-hospital capacity planning. Lithuanian plans for evacuation routes. UK public preparedness bulletins including recommendations for civilians to stock up on food and supplies..

Even Switzerland has been posting security and preparedness messages for citizens, indicating a “deteriorating security situation” in relation to the military build up.

All of this could be viewed as a defensive posture and not necessarily planning for direct engagement with the Russians; but consider for a moment that Russia has not once threatened to attack European or NATO targets and has consistently said that their only interest is Ukraine. Yet, Europe has removed their “trip wire” defense strategy and replaced it with a permanent front. It sure does seem like they are getting ready for an event which might provoke the Russians to strike targets outside of Ukraine.

What would that event be?

To be clear, I’m not a big fan of the Russian government. Evidence suggests that they engage in regular psy-ops in the US and there are far too many conservative influencers who kiss Putin’s ass. That said, I’m not a fan of Ukraine or the Europeans either, and I suspect the EU elites would LOVE to trigger a world war if they thought they could get away with it.

Why? Well, here’s my theory…

Europe has been the primary target of a decade long cultural replacement operation. Mass immigration has been utilized to undermine the stability of economic and social structures. For years I have been warning that these third world migrants are being imported as a mercenary army to control the locals and prevent rebellion against future leftist agendas.

We are already seeing confirmation of this in the UK, where migrants are being integrated into police forces to subdue conservative protesters.

The thing is, this invasion plan has sparked an enormous counter-movement of European patriots in countries like Britain and Germany. Anti-immigration and conservative parties like Restore in the UK and the AFD in Germany are seeing wild success in membership and elections. Meaning, time for leftists/globalists is running out and they need to do something quick before they lose direct governmental power.

A world war sure would come in handy, right? All kinds of restrictions on the populace can be put in place, along with a perfect excuse to delay or eliminate normal elections. Would the progressives actually go that far just to prevent conservatives from taking government?  We all know that they would.

So, we have two running clocks that did not exist at the beginning of the Ukraine war: We have a diesel shortage clock, specifically for the Europeans. And, we have an avalanche of conservative movements with major elections happening from 2026 through 2029.

My concern is that the leftists are about to go for broke in an effort to keep power. I don’t think they’re crazy enough to want a nuclear war, and perhaps the Russians want to avoid this as well. If that’s the case, then the result would be a large multi-region conflict that MIGHT turn nuclear if either side feels like they are losing.  The main goal of the EU elites at that stage would be to lure the US into the fray.

In any case the aftershocks would be disastrous. Let’s hope that conservative and populist movements in Europe can pull the rug out from under their far-left governments before the situation on the eastern front escalates any further.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 23:25

Korea Picks A $22 Billion Texas Gas Plant As First Down Payment On Its $350 Billion Pledge To Trump

Korea Picks A $22 Billion Texas Gas Plant As First Down Payment On Its $350 Billion Pledge To Trump

Ten months, one tariff threat and several "sleepless nights" later, South Korea has finally found somewhere to put the first piece of the $350 billion it promised to invest in America. The winner is a gas-fired power complex in Encinal, Texas (population 540, where real estate is about to ballistic), and it is built to feed the one thing Washington can never get enough of: electricity for data centers and chip fabs.

According to the FT, Seoul this week chose the proposed $22.3 billion, 6.3-gigawatt complex. The White House could announce it as soon as Wednesday, possibly with Trump announcing it himself, depending on how preparations for Xi Jinping's arrival in Washington go. Trump and President Lee Jae Myung met for 30 minutes on Tuesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The deal still needs final US approval.

Donald Trump, left, has also pressed South Korea’s President Lee Jae Myung to support the war in Iran © Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

Yonhap reported that the plant will be built in stages: an initial 1.4GW of simple-cycle gas turbines, followed by roughly 4.9GW of more efficient combined-cycle generation. However, in the first whiff of even more vaporware, no customers have been confirmed. Korea's KED Global adds that there is no power purchase agreement yet, with signing targeted for 2027. It also reports that the Trump administration asked for a roughly 25% increase in the project's size, which would take it to about $25 billion.

How the money works

Under the November 2025 agreement, Seoul supplies $200 billion in upfront capital for projects in "strategic industries," capped at $20 billion a year, plus a separate $150 billion for shipbuilding. Project cash flow is split 50/50 with Washington until Korea recovers its principal and interest. After that, Korea's share drops to 10% and the US takes 90%. It is a generous arrangement, just not for the side putting up the money.

Korean officials told the National Assembly that Encinal could generate $43 billion to $45 billion of revenue over 20 years, which they say is enough to recover principal and interest. Those numbers deserve a closer look:

  • $43 billion to $45 billion works out to roughly $2.2 billion a year, or about twice the upfront capital. That is gross revenue. It comes before fuel, operations, maintenance and financing costs, and pretty much everything else... and gas is the main input cost of a gas plant.
  • Korea receives only half of the project's cash flow until it is repaid. On a plain reading, recovering $22 billion plus interest from a 50% share would take distributable cash flow well above the capital invested. Seoul has not yet published a breakdown showing how revenue of about 2x capex achieves that.
  • The official line is that every project must be "commercially reasonable." But as Haeyoon Kim of Korea Tech and Trade Watch told the FT, the US-led Investment Committee decides what counts as commercially reasonable, and Trump makes the final call. Seoul can object, but objecting risks higher tariffs.

Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan said the government had "been negotiating intensely with the U.S. in order to pursue commercially viable projects," and that the goal was to expand Korean companies' entry into the US market. Lee said last week the talks had given him "sleepless nights."

Following Japan's lead

Tokyo went first. As we reported in February, the opening $36 billion tranche of Japan's $550 billion pledge was led by SB Energy's 9.2GW gas plant in Ohio (which as we reported last night is suddenly having major issues, having delayed its IPO), which Commerce Secretary Lutnick called "the largest natural gas generation facility in history." Japan has since added up to $40 billion of small modular reactors in Tennessee and Alabama.

If Seoul was looking for a template, it found one. The cost per unit of capacity is almost identical. At $22.3 billion for 6.3GW, Encinal comes to about $3,540 per kilowatt. At about $33 billion for 9.2GW, the Ohio plant comes to about $3,590 per kilowatt. Both are well above what US combined-cycle plants cost before the AI boom, which is what happens when every hyperscaler on earth wants the same megawatts at the same time.

The real constraint: turbines

Money, it turns out, is the easy part. As we detailed earlier this month, large gas turbines are effectively sold out through 2030. Applied Digital's CEO warned that orders placed today may not arrive until 2032. Some developers are so desperate they are going back to 19th-century technology, boilers and steam, just to get power online sooner. Encinal's plan, 1.4GW of fast-to-deploy turbines first and then 4.9GW of combined-cycle capacity, means getting in line for the same heavy-duty equipment every hyperscaler is already chasing.

Goldman's latest research on the power problem (available to pro subscribers) published just hours before the FT story, shows why Washington wants these megawatts. In a Carbonomics note on Wednesday, Michele Della Vigna's team said that with power availability "emerging as a key constraint on AI infrastructure deployment" and grid connection times in the US and Europe expected to lengthen, they "raise our outlook for BTM [behind-the-meter] power generation from 40GW to 67GW by 2030."

Goldman now expects on-site gas generation to meet about 28% of US data center power demand by 2030. Its preferred beneficiaries of conventional gas generation are GE Vernova, Siemens Energy, Mitsubishi Heavy and INNIO. Not a Korean name among them, which leaves an awkward question for Seoul: how much of the equipment spending on a Korean-funded plant will actually end up with Korean suppliers.

The competition for that equipment is not only American. The same Goldman research flags that Alibaba Cloud is targeting 20GW of data-center power by 2032, which is more than three Encinals for one Chinese cloud provider alone.

Then there is the question of who ends up buying the electricity. The obvious candidates are the hyperscalers, and they are not short of cash to spend. Goldman credit strategist Amanda Lynam last week raised her forecast for hyperscaler investment-grade bond issuance to $420 billion in 2027, "more than a 60% increase vs our full-year 2026 estimate of $250 billion," with 65% to 75% expected to be placed in the dollar IG market.

In other words, the would-be customers for Encinal's power are borrowing record sums to build data centers that need exactly this kind of plant. The bull case for Seoul is that one of them signs a PPA by 2027. The bear case is that Korea has fronted $22 billion on the assumption that someone will, while the AI capex cycle that Goldman's own economists say has companies "over-earning" is nearing its peak.

The bigger picture

The project comes as the US-Korea relationship is under strain on several fronts:

  • Iran: Trump has pressed Seoul for help in the war against Iran, and Lee has ruled out sending forces in a combat role.
  • Submarines: Seoul wants US help building nuclear-powered submarines. Washington agreed last year to cooperate on technical requirements and fuel, but there has been almost no progress since.
  • Linkage: One Korean official told the FT that US counterparts had signaled further progress on the submarines would come only after Seoul announced some of its promised investments. Pay first, then we talk.

Nuclear projects and a scaled-down Alaska LNG project are expected to follow Encinal. Korea is also negotiating a stake of about 7% in Westinghouse, down from the 15% it originally sought, according to KED. For now, the first check is going to a Texas gas plant with no customers, no power purchase agreement, turbines that may not show up this decade, and revenue projections that still have to be squared with a 50/50 cash-flow split. That leaves $328 billion to go.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 23:00

Hurricane Polo Disrupts Mexican Ports, Puts Key Asia Trade Gateways At Risk

Hurricane Polo Disrupts Mexican Ports, Puts Key Asia Trade Gateways At Risk

Hurricane Polo weakened to a Category 4 storm early Wednesday after strengthening into an "extremely dangerous" Category 5 storm and churning 210 miles south of Zihuatanejo, Mexico, in the Pacific Ocean. The storm risks disrupting critical maritime shipping lanes along Mexico's Pacific coast.

FreightWaves reports that Mexico's Navy restricted major container port Manzanillo to ships of at least 500 gross tonnage beginning Tuesday morning, allowing container ships to continue operating while barring smaller craft. Ships already docked at the container port were advised to reinforce mooring lines as winds, rainfall and waves intensified.

Polo's slow track up the western Mexican coast is complicating complex global maritime supply chains as navigation restrictions continue to broaden.

According to local outlet La Jornada, smaller vessels have so far been restricted at Acapulco, Puerto Marqués, Zihuatanejo and Lázaro Cárdenas in Michoacán.

Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas are two major cargo ports on Mexico's Pacific coast and are considered major maritime gateways into North American markets. Both connect ocean shipping with inland road and rail networks. Disruptions can delay imported manufacturing components and consumer goods.

Bloomberg forecast data shows Polo tracking north toward Cabo San Lucas early next week, potentially adding further supply chain complications at ports such as nearby Puerto San Carlos, where disruptions could affect regional fuel deliveries, seafood operations and agricultural shipments.

Supply chain risk hinges on how long restrictions last and whether they expand to larger vessels. With Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas connecting Asian cargo flows to Mexico's industrial base, a prolonged shutdown could delay components, slow factory output, and raise logistics costs for the region. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 22:10

China Expands Export Controls On Drug Precursor Chemicals Ahead Of Trump-Xi Talks

China Expands Export Controls On Drug Precursor Chemicals Ahead Of Trump-Xi Talks

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

China has added more chemicals to its export control list for drug precursor substances ahead of a high-stakes meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Washington.

Fentanyl precursors are displayed at Reuters' office in Mexico City on Oct. 4, 2023. Claudia Daut/Reuters

The Chinese commerce ministry announced on Sept. 22 that it added two new substances to the list of chemicals subject to export controls, requiring exporters to obtain licenses to ship to the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

The move comes ahead of Xi's state visit to the United States. Xi is due to meet with Trump at the White House on Sept. 24, marking their second meeting this year.

The two leaders last met during Trump's visit to Beijing in May, when they agreed to build a "constructive relationship of strategic stability on the basis of fairness and reciprocity," according to the White House.

Following the meeting in Beijing, China expanded its drug precursor export control list by adding three more chemical substances. Its National Narcotics Control Commission also issued a notice warning of eight chemicals that could be used to make synthetic drugs.

The Trump administration has repeatedly urged Beijing to do more to stem the flow of precursor chemicals for synthesizing the deadly opioid fentanyl into the United States.

China is a major source of precursor chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. After returning to the White House for a second term last year, Trump imposed fentanyl-related tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada over their alleged failure to stem the flow of illicit drugs into the United States. The tariffs were subsequently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February.

Fentanyl deaths in the United States rose steeply around 2016. Then deaths skyrocketed from 2021 to 2023 along with a record surge of border crossings, and at its peak, the fentanyl crisis was linked to 76,226 deaths in 2022, more than quadruple the figure from 2016. The United States started seeing a reversal in 2024, coinciding with changed border policies, and fentanyl-linked deaths in 2024 were estimated to be 48,422.

The United States has also been engaging Chinese officials to counter the fentanyl crisis since the mid-2010s, resulting in the restriction of several chemicals over the years.

Notably, Beijing broke off all major engagement with the United States in 2022, citing then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) visit to Taiwan, including ceasing cooperation on curbing fentanyl-related exports. It resumed engagement in November 2023 after the United States removed sanctions on the Chinese Ministry of Public Security's Institute of Forensic Science for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

In November 2025, Beijing imposed export restrictions on 13 fentanyl precursor chemicals to the United States, Mexico, and Canada after Trump met with Xi on the sidelines of the APEC summit in South Korea.

It remains unclear whether the upcoming meeting in Washington will address the flow of precursor chemicals into the United States, as neither Beijing nor Washington has specified which issues will be on the leaders' agenda.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters after a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Manila, Philippines, on July 22 that he expects Xi to have a positive visit.

Rubio acknowledged the major differences between Washington and Beijing and emphasized that it is their job to manage them to ensure "they never get out of control."

"We're, obviously, always going to defend our national interest," he said at the time. "And I expect they'll do the same, as they define it. But I think there are some areas of potential cooperation."

Michael Zhuang, Catherine Yang, and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 21:45

Marxist-Maxxing: Hasan Piker Calls For "Literal Communist Revolution" Inside Dem Party

Marxist-Maxxing: Hasan Piker Calls For "Literal Communist Revolution" Inside Dem Party

The Democratic Socialists of America's unofficial cheerleader, far-left streamer Hasan Piker, has stated an inconvenient truth for the Democratic Party: its far-left fringe will eat the party alive, quite literally.

Listen to Piker in his own words: "I will throw you in prison. I want Chinese-style communism to happen inside of the Democratic Party right now. I want to do cultural revolution shit."

Anti-communist Spencer Pratt, who really should be the anti-communist czar for the Trump administration if Trump's team sets up a messaging task force, wrote on X, "Hamas Piker just flat out admits he wants to imprison and kill Democrats in a literal communist revolution. These are animals."

Fox News reports that a majority of registered voters view the DSA unfavorably, as Republicans have unleashed an information operation to outline to voters that this far-left group - really reformist socialists - in fact, are hellbent on demolishing the nation from within. 

The beauty of the GOP's messaging is that DSA leaders state their destructive intentions in their own words. 

The national survey found 55% held an unfavorable opinion of the DSA, compared with 30% who viewed it favorably. Another 13% had never heard of the DSA, a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. The findings were little changed from July, when favorable and unfavorable views stood at 31% and 56%, respectively.

One major problem for Democrats is that they can't disband the DSA and start a civil war within the party before the midterms, as was shown by Democratic Party leaders using talking points that describe their party as a "big tent party." 

Related: 

DSA is far-left:

On Tuesday, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, President Trump said that Cuba spent decades coordinating activities with far-left revolutionaries and subversion networks in the U.S. Trump said the State Department has worked to uncover Havana's ties to subversive and radical groups such as the Communist Party USA, Antifa, and the DSA.

Hasan's comments offer what can only be seen as a preview of what awaits Democratic Party leaders when they try to disband their radicals. It won't be pretty.

* * *

  FOR ZEROHEDGE READERSA $10 HEDGE,
ON US.$10 off one order of $30 or more. New or returning, one per person. YOUR EMAILGET MY $10 →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. $30 minimum, once per person, can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 21:20

Harvey Weinstein (Finally) Sentenced To 15 Years In Prison

Harvey Weinstein (Finally) Sentenced To 15 Years In Prison

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

Disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for a 2006 sex crime.

The Sept. 23 sentencing was for the sexual assault of then-TV production assistant Miriam Haley, and comes after Weinstein's 2020 conviction was overturned.

A jury found Weinstein guilty at last year's retrial.

In 2024, Weinstein's conviction for this same crime, which was handed down in 2020, was erased due to a judge's determination that the jury had heard testimony that should not have been admitted.

The judge ruled that the now-convicted assailant was denied a fair trial due to the admission of testimony from women whose allegations weren't a part of the Haley case.

The 74-year-old faced up to 25 years in prison for the assault of Haley, and he has already served six years.

Haley testified about the 2006 assault, which took place at Weinstein's Manhattan apartment, three times: at two trials and again in court just before the sentencing.

The former Hollywood insider has been embroiled in legal troubles for almost 10 years, starting in 2017, and has been a centerpiece in the cultural #MeToo movement that prompted victims to speak out about sexual assault.

Once a powerful figure in the entertainment industry and a major political donor, Weinstein took part in the production of award-winning movies such as "Shakespeare in Love," "Pulp Fiction," and "Chocolat."

Weinstein has been accused by more than 100 women of sexual assault, misconduct, and harassment. He has denied the charges.

Among his accusers are Hollywood actresses and others in the film industry.

The producer and one-time influential political donor was found guilty of sexual assault while simultaneously being acquitted of a rape charge from 2013.

Weinstein, who cofounded the Miramax studio, was initially convicted of rape and sexual assault in 2020 and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Two years later, he was also convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an Italian actress in 2013, for which he was sentenced to 16 years.

The second sentencing, which took place in California, required that he serve that term separately from the New York sentence.

While in jail, Weinstein was treated for a type of slow-growing blood cancer - chronic myeloid leukemia - as well as heart issues, diabetes, and other issues.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:55

Zelensky To UN: Russia's Deficit 'Bigger Than Any Other Year' - More Sanctions Needed

Zelensky To UN: Russia's Deficit 'Bigger Than Any Other Year' - More Sanctions Needed

Among the more interesting parts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's speech before the UN General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon was when he lashed out at North Korea.

Zelensky said while issuing leveling a litany of charges against Russia for its war that "The leader of North Korea sent his troops to Russia to support the weak points of the Russian army."

via Associated Press

He questioned why a faraway southeast Asian country would be so willing to sacrifice its troops for a Russian endeavor. 

Zelensky said: "You probably saw the broadcast from Pyongyang when they honored those who were killed. And this is madness, too. Why should Koreans give their lives in a war against Ukraine?"

He further accused Kim Jong Un of using his own citizens "like currency" in return for "improved ballistic missiles and Pyongyang’s much [upgraded] drone capabilities." Likely these barbs will only cause Kim's regime to double down, and keep up its military support to Moscow.

By some estimates, hundreds or possibly even thousands of DPRK troops have died so far in the Ukraine conflict. Pyongyang and Moscow have increasingly openly acknowledged the deaths, with North Korea even having held patriotic state funerals for slain troops.

Elsewhere in the address, Zelensky sought to portray his country as essentially 'winning' the war, claiming immense but unverifiable Russian losses on the battlefield, also while Ukraine's long-range drones unleash destruction on Russian energy infrastructure. 

Concerning the energy war, Zelensky went on to assert that "Oil itself is not Ukraine’s target, not our target, not gasoline or diesel, not factories or ports … Our target is Russia’s ability to finance this war, to drag it out, to make it more brutal and more destructive."

"Russia's finances and Russia's production are what must be stopped if Putin is to be stopped," Zelensky added. On this front, he presented Ukraine's risky long-range strikes as victorious. But he has also this week expressed willingness to agree to a joint energy ceasefire.

On sanctions, he pointed to Russia's budget deficit as now being "bigger than in any other year" - claiming that "Russia planned major operations on the front this summer; all of them failed."

Zelensky also used the speech to try and rally Western countries to not grow weak on punishing Russia and keeping its global isolation in place.

“Something always seems to stop Putin from saying, ‘That’s it. Enough, Peace,’” Zelensky said. “Can you even imagine him without war? He is ‘Patient Zero’, the one from whom war keeps spreading further. ... ‘Patient Zero’ must be stopped.”

He said Russian assets must "remain a target," arguing that "when someone in the world weakens sanctions, weakens sanctions against Russian oligarchs, it may make life more comfortable for rich Russians, but it also gives Putin more time, to send his people into the kill zones."

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:30

The Sudden AI Panic Has A Lot To Do With The November Midterms

The Sudden AI Panic Has A Lot To Do With The November Midterms

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

We're about 40 days, close to 40 days, out of the midterm, and all of a sudden there's been a melodramatic announcement that artificial intelligence could destroy the human race. I think everybody's always accepted that remote possibility, and it's been very popular in popular culture, such as "The Terminator" series. But why did all of a sudden we hear about it now?

And the answer is Jason Coxon, a minor figure that had worked in major AI companies, suddenly quit, and he announced that even the CEOs of those companies were worried that they were creating things that they couldn't control, and that artificial intelligence would, on its own, be able to outthink humans and perhaps control the world, etc.

In "The End of Everything," a book I mentioned, a theoretical experiment by the Pentagon, a computer simulation in which a missile was programmed to do anything that it could to protect itself to complete the mission. And when one of the programmers pushed the kill button, the missile turned on the computer screen. It wasn't a real missile, but the simulated missile turned and went back at the person who pushed the button.

So, we've always known that that risk was there, but why was it so exaggerated right now? These CEOs, it was very interesting. If they're so worried about the direction of research, why don't they do two things? Why don't they patrol, control, audit their own people?

It's almost like saying, "I'm afraid that I'll commit arson." And if you're afraid you'll commit arson, then why don't you take fuel away from that person or don't ever touch gasoline? If you're afraid that your company will make something that will destroy mankind, then don't do it.

But if you say, "I still can't control it," then why are you opposing liability, legislation that says the makers of AI, should that AI product be used and be used to hurt people, they're not liable? You would say, "What? Just make us liable. That'll ensure that you can trust us because we might not trust ourselves."

The other thing is they've called, and the Left has called, for international control. I'd like to say, if you look at the history of international control regulations, it's not good.

The League of Nations, did that stop World War II? When Mussolini decided to go into East Africa, did they stop him from using the Suez Canal? Did they tell Japan, "You can't go into Manchuria," or to get out of China? Did they say to Hitler, "Don't go into the Sudetenland"? They did. Did it do any good? No.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact, remember that? That was going to be a worldwide, by Sen. [Frank] Kellogg in the United States in the 1920s, a worldwide effort to outlaw war. How did that work out? Within a decade and a half, we were at war.

How about the Washington Naval Treaty? That was a very inspired, idealistic idea after World War I: Let's stop the dreadnought race. Everybody will agree to make no destroyer, cruiser, battleship over a certain tonnage. Did Japan or Germany abide by the 35,000-ton limit on battleships? No. Did we? Yes. Did Britain? Yes. Did France? Yes. Did Mussolini? No. Did, as I said, Germany? No. Did Japan?

In other words, consensual societies do abide by international treaties. Nonconsensual societies do not.

How about the Versailles Treaty? Did that prevent another war? No. How about the Munich Agreement between Prime Minister [Neville] Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler? Did he abide by that when he said: This is my last territorial conquest in Europe? No. He invaded Europe about a year later.

How about the recent Paris climate accord? Has that reduced Chinese carbon emissions? No. They're building two to three coal plants per month.

How about the United Nations Human Rights Council? Has that stopped the slaughter of Christians in Africa? Did that stop the ethnic cleansing and killing of Armenians in Azerbaijan? No.

So, international accords won't work.

So, what is going on with all this melodrama? Why now? Why on the eve of an election? It's not new. Let's look at some of the end-of-days scares that we've had in the past.

When I was younger, in 1968, there was the Nixon-Humphrey campaign, and all of a sudden Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford professor, said we're all going to be destroyed by overpopulation. He took the old Thomas Malthus worry in the 19th century of overpopulation. He wrote a bestseller called "The Population Bomb," and it said there's no way we can get enough fuel, food, precious metals ... to feed this growing billion-dollar, billion-person population bomb. We're doomed.

And it had a lot of bad effects. People started just to have one child. In Europe, they took it very seriously. The idea was have one child, adopt one. And now Canada has a 1.25 fertility rate. Europe is about 1.33, the EU.

It had disastrous consequences, and we now - we have more people on the planet than ever, and the per capita income of the world population is higher than when Paul Ehrlich wrote that book.

In 1983, there was a nuclear winter. We were all scared. Carl Sagan, he was sort of like Paul Ehrlich, a professor. He was a cult figure. He said that we're gonna have a nuclear exchange, and when we do, the nuclear dust will blot out the sun, and we'll all die.

That was in relationship to the Soviets. For a long time, they had short-range missiles threatening Europe. Ronald Reagan said that's not allowable, to bully Europe. We're gonna put Pershing II missiles to counteract your missiles.

There were some standoffs, and all of a sudden - and what was gonna happen within a year? There was going to be the 1984 reelection effort of Reagan. So, all of a sudden, the Left said: Nuclear winter, nuclear winter, we're all gonna be doomed.

Hollywood made a movie, "The Day After," showing mushrooms dotting the Kansas landscape. A hundred thousand people. It was just a complete hysteria.

Then we had climate change, or rather global warming went to climate change.

In 1992, who wrote "Earth in the Balance"? Candidate Al Gore during that election cycle. What was his thesis? Well, there was global warming we were worried about, but he was saying that heat is a pollutant. Everybody's dangerous or deadly as industrial waste or ozone or whatever.

And he said we have only a decade or a decade and a half, and the polar bears are going to die. The coral reefs off Australia are going to erode. Icebergs are going to melt in the Antarctic, and the Arctic Ocean is going to be too warm, and we're going to have difficulty navigating these icebergs. The endless - you couldn't get a place on the ocean. Barack Obama's house in Hawaii, built, I guess, apparently, will be inundated.

And then it didn't happen. Didn't happen.

But Al Gore and [Bill] Clinton were elected.

In 2016, remember "Me Too"? Harvey Weinstein was using the old casting couch of Hollywood producers to coerce sex from actresses so they could get a role. It started out legitimately, as did climate change worries, as did nuclear bomb worries, as did AI worries.

But that didn't last long. All of a sudden, careers as varied as Garrison Keillor, Brett Kavanaugh, Al Franken, the senator, everybody, if they did anything in their past, stole a kiss, patted someone too long, hugged somebody, half the country was worried over the last 30 years had they said an off-color joke. There was a climate of paranoia.

And it was right during the what? The 2016 election.

And who promulgated it? We'll get to that in a minute.

And then it died. Why did it die pretty soon? Because Joe Biden in 2019-20 was a candidate, and he was going to be the only viable candidate for the Left. They were terrified of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg is too far left. And Joe Biden was handsy, a euphemism for touching women, hugging them too long. One of them, Tara Reade, came forward and said she'd been sexually assaulted.

And of course, Bill Clinton then earned renewed scrutiny. What did you actually do, Bill? And after you left office, we hear about the [Jeffrey] Epstein connection, we hear about women on your plane, and all of a sudden it disappeared, Me Too.

Then I could go on with the COVID lockdown and the paranoia that ended up probably killing more people, destroying millions of lives economically, ruining education.

I could go into the George Floyd paranoia after the death of George Floyd. Thirty-five killed, $2 billion in property damage, 1,500 police officers, five months of looting, arson, destruction.

What do all these things have in common? Well, they're melodramas. They're psychodramas. All of a sudden, people take a legitimate issue and they start to use it to achieve a political aim.

It's no accident that the AI hysteria is happening right before the election.

And usually, in all of these cases - the Carl Sagan nuclear winter, the Al Gore climate change, the Paul Ehrlich population drama, the BLM ginned-up rioting after George Floyd, the opponents of Donald Trump who wanted to lock down the economy - they're usually used by the Left.

And finally, let's be frank. When they're all over, Carl Sagan is a household name, and he's very wealthy. Paul Ehrlich is a household name, and he's very wealthy. Al Gore starts out as any politician, supposedly very poor. He's from an affluent family, and he's now a near-billionaire.

And the BLM people who ginned up the George Floyd riots, they all retreated to plush homes, used those monies that were intended to be nonprofit funds for their own personal aggrandizement.

In sum, when you see a sudden epidemic, a melodrama, a hysteria, just be very careful because the odds are it will be in an election year, it'll be ginned up by a so-called left-wing expert, and when it's all over, that left-wing expert will be pretty wealthy.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:05

"The Danes Lied The Most": What's Really In The Text Of Trump's Landmark Deal With Greenland

"The Danes Lied The Most": What's Really In The Text Of Trump's Landmark Deal With Greenland

Authored by John Weeks via AntiWar.com

US To Establish Two New Military Bases In Greenland

The United States plans to open two new military bases in Greenland, an expansion made possible by a new security agreement between the US, Denmark, and the semi-autonomous Danish territory of Greenland.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen signed the new security agreement during a trilateral ceremony at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

US Army image

The "agreement," which amends a 1951 defense treaty, allows the US "to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig in accordance with modalities and technical details to be mutually agreed by the Parties," which is where the two new military bases will be created.

Narsarsuaq hosted the US Bluie West One military base in the 1940s and 1950s. Mestersvig is a current military outpost used by the Danish special forces unit called Sirius Dog Sled Patrol.

The agreement also allows the US to "modernize and expand its activities" at its existing Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, create additional military facilities on the island, and enjoy greater military access by land, air, and sea.

It also bans non-NATO nations from establishing a military presence on Greenland and provides the U.S. with economic privileges (such as “minerals cooperation”) in the resource-rich island.

During a speech to assembled world leaders at the UN before the trilateral ceremony, Trump spoke of the "unprecedented agreement regarding the northern frontier of North America, the large and strategically vital piece of land known as Greenland."

This rhetoric tracked with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s vow in March to establish a "Greater North America." However, the agreement does not have the US take over Greenland, as leaders on the island, in Denmark, and throughout Europe had feared earlier this year.

Such fears were well placed, considering that the US conquered Venezuela in January, has been working toward regime change in Cuba, and is currently at war with Iran.

What's in the actual Greenland deal text? Analysis in the following: "The Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland"...

Geopolitical commentator Arnaud Bertrand's breakdown of the official text and the implications:

1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent." It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."

2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one. Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement. Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.

3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny. The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea." That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.

4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.

5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties." Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.

6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US. The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.

During his UN speech, Trump unleashed an extremely aggressive statement aimed at Tehran: "Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East, or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?"

  FOR ZEROHEDGE READERSA $10 HEDGE,
ON US.$10 off one order of $30 or more. New or returning, one per person. YOUR EMAILGET MY $10 →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. $30 minimum, once per person, can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:00

Check Your Freezer: Popular Pasta Sold Nationwide Recalled Over Deadly Bacteria Contamination Fears

Check Your Freezer: Popular Pasta Sold Nationwide Recalled Over Deadly Bacteria Contamination Fears

Shoppers who picked up frozen pasta at Walmart recently may want to check their freezers as a popular store-brand dish has been pulled from shelves across the country over contamination concerns.

Gias Foods has issued a nationwide recall of two lots of its bettergoods Authentic Italian Lemon Alfredo Fettuccine after testing revealed the product may carry Listeria monocytogenes, a bacteria capable of causing serious illness. The pasta was sold at Walmart locations from coast to coast, though so far no illnesses have been reported.

The recalled product comes in a 22-ounce yellow plastic package with the UPC 194346442706, and customers can identify the affected lots by the codes L6079C or L6080C, along with expiration dates of 09/19/2027 or 09/20/2027 stamped on the back.

The problem was first flagged not by federal regulators but by state inspectors, as routine sampling by agriculture officials in Washington State and Florida turned up the bacteria in finished products. In response, the company has stopped shipping the pasta while it works with the FDA to determine what went wrong.

What makes Listeria especially alarming is how easily it goes unnoticed. Contaminated food can look, smell and taste perfectly normal while still causing severe and sometimes fatal infections. And because symptoms can take as long as 70 days to show up, anyone who ate the pasta should keep an eye on their health for weeks to come.

Those symptoms include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and a stiff neck, and since they can resemble other illnesses, only specific lab tests can confirm an infection. Health officials urge anyone who ate the product and feels sick to seek medical care and tell their doctor about the possible exposure.

The recall revives unwelcome memories for Walmart shoppers. Just last year, a Listeria outbreak linked to pasta meals from Nate's Fine Foods left at least six people dead and 25 hospitalized after the products reached Walmart, Kroger, Trader Joe's and other major retailers.

* * * Looking for safe alternatives?

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 19:40

Trump Social Media Firm Sues Ex-Co-Founder, Claims He Gambled Away Company Cash in Wild Slot Machine Spree

Trump Social Media Firm Sues Ex-Co-Founder, Claims He Gambled Away Company Cash in Wild Slot Machine Spree

X Strategies, the Florida social media firm that powers some of President Donald Trump's most-followed social media accounts, is taking its former co-founder Derek Utley to federal court, accusing him of quietly draining at least $5 million from the company to fund a jet-set lifestyle and a staggering gambling habit, according to POLITICO.

The company filed a 34-page complaint September 18 in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach against Utley and his former girlfriend Anna Weisheimer.

Co-founded by Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz, X Strategies runs the Trump War Room and Team Trump accounts on X and helps manage the president's TikTok presence.

Utley, X Strategies' former chairman and chief financial officer, allegedly had exclusive control over the company's bank accounts after he and Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz launched the firm in 2017. Starting in 2021, the complaint alleges, Utley began funneling company money into his personal life, splurging on sports cars, designer clothing, jewelry, and luxury condos.

In 2025 alone, Utley spent a whopping 200 days at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Florida, dropping $29 million in company funds into slot machines, X Strategies alleges. Utley allegedly won back more than $26 million, but kept the winnings for himself while the company was left holding a $3 million loss. The filing further alleges Utley pulled cash from casino ATMs and told banks the withdrawals were for client entertainment.

The alleged shortfall came to light after the firm brought on Michael Seifert, the former CEO of PublicSq, a marketplace that connects conservative consumers with small businesses, as X Strategies' president. Utley departed from the social media company in April and gave up his 50% ownership stake.

The lawsuit brings civil RICO, theft, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and seeks damages that could be tripled.

"I dispute these allegations in the complaint and will address them through the legal process," Utley told POLITICO. "I have no further comment at this time."

Weisheimer, a social media influencer and Pilates instructor, also denied any wrongdoing.

"I have absolutely nothing to do with the drama between Alex and Derek. I briefly dated Derek, during which time I asked him to purchase a Pilates studio for me. He ultimately decided not to, and our relationship ended shortly thereafter," Weisheimer told The Independent. "I have requested that I be removed from this lawsuit immediately, as I have no involvement in the issues between these two gentlemen."

  FOR ZEROHEDGE READERSA $10 HEDGE,
ON US.$10 off one order of $30 or more. New or returning, one per person. YOUR EMAILGET MY $10 →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. $30 minimum, once per person, can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:50

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court's October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons in out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins).

A recent column from Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again. The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases. Here is the portion that I wanted to address:

The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently. Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms" left undisturbed, part III said "we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ... the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'" (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns). I add emphasis on "at the time," because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this "important limitation."

As the solicitor general's brief notes, "the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956," and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the "most commonly owned rifle[] in America" today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use "at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Indeed, as the SG's brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general's Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s "are in common use" today (again, my emphasis). This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing "were" to "are") - an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh's 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011. Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say.

As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller.

Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way...Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment "extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding." It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court).

Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases.

I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as "earth-shattering." I do not.

I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in "changing 'were' to 'are.'"

This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word "were."

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:25

Beijing Moves Down The AI Stack: After GPUs, China Is Coming For Broadcom's Switches

Beijing Moves Down The AI Stack: After GPUs, China Is Coming For Broadcom's Switches

Xi Jinping lands in Washington for a state visit today, but as Bloomberg sums up the mood in one line: the two leaders "may find common ground on AI safety, but neither is willing to give ground in the technology race." And right on schedule, the FT reports that Beijing has started counting Broadcom switches.

According to the FT, China's State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), which oversees the country's state-owned companies, has spent recent weeks surveying how much Broadcom switching gear is installed in state-controlled data centres. The count came back... high: "The survey found that the penetration rate of Broadcom switches among state-owned companies could be as high as 90 per cent, one of the people said."

The exercise supports Beijing's "domestic chips for domestic use" campaign. The initial findings could lead SASAC to issue "informal guidance" telling state data centres to cut back on Broadcom. In Beijing, informal guidance tends to carry the weight of a formal order.

Why switches, and why now

Switches get little attention in the AI boom, but they decide whether 10,000 accelerators work together as one training cluster or sit around as 10,000 very expensive heaters. Broadcom's merchant Ethernet silicon dominates that layer worldwide. Nvidia and Huawei also sell high-end switches in China, but Nvidia is already barred from state-backed data centers. That leaves Broadcom as the last major American supplier embedded in China's state AI build-out.

SASAC is also looking at how Broadcom sells, not just how much. Per the FT, the agency is checking whether Broadcom used its market lead to bundle products or require purchase commitments of up to tens of thousands of switch chips. Those terms allegedly limited how much H3C and Ruijie Networks could buy from other vendors such as Huawei. H3C and Ruijie are the preferred vendors on the procurement lists behind billions of dollars in annual public-sector IT spending. If that line of questioning sounds familiar, Beijing used the same approach last year when it found Nvidia had breached antimonopoly law over its Mellanox deal. Mellanox is, notably, a networking business.

Two caveats from the FT story: 

  • Private operators are exempt. ByteDance and Alibaba are not covered, so the rule doesn't reach the companies doing most of China's frontier training.
  • Nothing gets ripped out. Existing gear stays in place. One rack-maker sales rep described the policy as "part of a broader policy to 'nationalise the supply chain'." In practice, that means a replacement cycle rather than a purge.
The stakes for Broadcom

According to its latest 10-K, 17% of Broadcom's FY2025 revenue (about $10.9bn of $63.9bn) came from shipments to China including Hong Kong. That was down from 20% a year earlier. Much of that figure is ship-to accounting for contract manufacturers assembling gear for non-Chinese customers, so true Chinese end-demand is smaller. AVGO rose about 0.5% on the headline, which suggests traders don't see much damage. Sure enough, while the near-term P&L hit is modest but the strategic cost is bigger: switching is set to become a multibillion-dollar market inside China, and it is being set aside for domestic suppliers.

The bigger picture: Goldman's numbers on China's self-reliance push

Goldman's recent research shows how quickly the domestic stack is filling in:

  • The demand side is large. Goldman's desk points out that China's domestic AI chip market is "quietly gearing up for a staggering 69% compound annual growth rate through 2030." GS Research's CHIPS IV forecasts China semiconductor capex rising +13% / +15% / +15% in 2026–28, driven by memory and advanced-node capacity.
  • The foundry is full. In the SMIC note (available to pro subs here), Allen Chang says SMIC grew revenue 20% QoQ in 2Q26. That was the fastest among the global top-10 foundries, whose aggregate growth was 11.5%. Chang attributes it to "China's strong AI demand and customers diversifying their suppliers to better secure capacity." Utilization is expected to stay above 95% through 2H26, new wafer pricing takes effect in 3Q26, and 54–71% of capex goes to 7nm and advanced nodes. Goldman expects no ASP declines because there's no spare capacity to discount.

  • The private sector is localizing without being told to. In the Alibaba note after the Apsara conference (available here for pro subs), Golman analyst Ronald Keung forecasts capex of Rmb209bn / 243bn / 260bn for FY27–29E and a cloud power footprint of 20GW by 2032, supported by "unique cost advantages from its custom T-head silicon." Alibaba is exempt from the SASAC push, yet it is building its own chips anyway.
  • Policy points the same way. Goldman chief China economist Hui Shan writes that policymakers are "focused on advanced manufacturing rather than broad-based easing." So while consumers deal with a housing slump, the fabs keep getting funded.

Put Goldman's research next to the policy timeline and the pattern is clear:

  • August 2025: New data centers told to source at least 50% of chips locally.
  • September 2025: Big tech told to stop buying Nvidia's China-specific chips, and regulators issued the Mellanox antitrust finding.
  • November 2025: State-funded data centers banned from using foreign AI accelerators (Reuters).
  • June 2026: A reported ~2 trillion yuan ($295bn) national compute plan through 2028 with an 80% domestic-content target (TechTimes).
  • September 2026: The survey of switches, one of the last foreign-made layers left.

On the supply side, Huawei used last week's Huawei Connect to lay out an Ascend roadmap of the 960 in 2027, 970 in 2028 and 980 in 2029. It also showed an Atlas 960 SuperPoD that links 4,096 NPUs over its proprietary UnifiedBus interconnect, which means its networking is in-house too (Irish Times). DeepSeek reportedly plans to deploy at least 160,000 Ascend 950DTs. Huawei has raised 950DT prices by 60%, citing "tight component supply," which suggests pricing power is not an American monopoly either.

The catch: domestic gear costs more to run

Industry experts told the FT that Huawei's switches are less energy-efficient than Broadcom's, which means higher power bills for users. That matches Goldman's SMIC work: with utilization above 95% and no price cuts coming, "domestic" currently also means "capacity-constrained and not cheap." China's workaround is to build power generation faster than anyone else, which they've done this admirably.

Bottom line

Export controls were meant to keep China a generation or two behind in AI hardware. They did slow progress in places, but they also gave Beijing both a reason and the political cover to replace every layer of the stack: accelerators, foundry, memory, interconnect and now switches. Each layer runs slower and hotter than its US counterpart, but it is Chinese-made. The market Broadcom has lost is small this year and likely to shrink further. Goldman's 69% CAGR figure describes a market growing quickly, and US suppliers are increasingly shut out of it.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:00

Missouri Congressional Map Returns To Supreme Court For Third Time

Missouri Congressional Map Returns To Supreme Court For Third Time

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The dispute over Missouri's new congressional map returned to the Supreme Court for the third time, with justices considering whether the state can use the GOP-backed map in the midterm elections.

The new map could help Republicans gain an additional U.S. House seat in the Nov. 3 elections.

The Supreme Court has twice prevented the state from using the redrawn congressional map, most recently on Sept. 10, when it granted the opponents' bid to stay a federal judge's order allowing the state to use the map in the midterm elections.

People Not Politicians, the group opposing the redrawn congressional map, filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 22 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that using the 2022 map in the Nov. 3 general elections would be unconstitutional, as the state had already used the redrawn 2025 map in the August 2026 primaries.

In a Sept. 21 ruling, the Eighth Circuit ordered U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark to enter a permanent injunction barring Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins from using any congressional map other than the one the Legislature approved in 2025.

The federal appeals court stayed its ruling until Sept. 28 to allow time for a Supreme Court review.

Opponents asked the Supreme Court to block the ruling, saying it undermined the court's previous injunction blocking the use of the 2025 congressional map.

"The Eighth Circuit's order does not merely undermine this court's stay order; it requires the district court to issue a permanent injunction granting the exact same relief this court stayed in the exact same case," the motion stated.

The motion asks the Supreme Court to clarify that its Sept. 10 stay "precludes enforcement of the replacement injunction - or any additional federal court injunctions contrary to the stay order - so long as that stay remains in effect."

Opponents also argued that the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to enter the ruling.

"The Eighth Circuit cannot disrupt an imminent election after ballots have been cast by issuing relief that this court has already foreclosed and that it lacked jurisdiction to grant, all based on a merits theory of the panel's own invention," they said.

The Supreme Court gave supporters of the new map until midday on Wednesday to respond to the latest appeal.

The 2022 map, drawn by the General Assembly after the 2020 census, was designed to give Republicans a 6-2 edge. The 2025 map, drawn as part of a mid-decade redistricting, was designed to give them a 7-1 advantage.

Missouri held primary elections on Aug. 4 using the 2025 Missouri First map approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. President Donald Trump supported the redrawn map.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 17:40

Senate Panel Rejects Immunity For Ex-Fauci Aide

Senate Panel Rejects Immunity For Ex-Fauci Aide

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected on Sept. 23 a bid to seek immunity for a longtime special assistant to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The vote on a resolution authorizing an application for a court order compelling testimony under immunity from the assistant, who was not identified, fell short of the required two-thirds of members.

All eight Republicans, but no Democrats, voted in favor. Two Democrats would have had to cross the aisle for the resolution to be approved.

Fauci, 85, headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022.

He refused to answer questions before the panel earlier in the year, citing the Fifth Amendment, prompting the committee to refer him for contempt of Congress to federal prosecutors.

The Department of Justice has not charged Fauci with any crimes.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the female assistant worked for Fauci from 2007 to 2022, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the committee's chairman.

He said her position "placed her in the flow of communications directly relevant to our investigation" into Fauci.

She recently appeared behind closed doors before the committee and invoked the Fifth Amendment, or her right against self-incrimination.

The questions senators want answered primarily deal with the destruction of government records, Paul said. A doctor who was a longtime adviser to Fauci recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to delete government records. Fauci has directed subordinates to delete emails.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who voted against the resolution, said before the vote that senators should pursue a "good-faith bipartisan approach to obtain this information" rather than rush to approve the resolution.

Republicans expressed frustration and anger that only Hassan among Democratic panel members was present during the meeting.

"I come from the private sector. To not show up to a meeting, to say 'I refuse to do my job,' is something that only happens in politics," Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) said.

"That is outrageous."

After the vote, Paul said:

"A majority of the committee voted to seek the truth. All Republicans voted to seek the truth. We voted to protect this witness and hear her story. All we needed was two Democrats who wanted to hear her story, but not a single one of them is interested in the investigation or the truth about destruction of federal records."

Hassan said that was a mischaracterization of the Democrats' position.

Paul said he would be sending a letter to the Department of Justice requesting pursuit of the matter, and said his committee's investigation into government record destruction will continue.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 17:20

Trump Meets Venezuela's Rodriguez In New York

Trump Meets Venezuela's Rodriguez In New York

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump and Venezuela's interim President Delcy Rodriguez met Tuesday night on the sidelines of a United Nations reception, their first face-to-face talks since American forces seized then-President Nicolas Maduro in January.

Venezuela's Interim President Delcy Rodriguez and U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 22, 2026. Venezuela Presidential Palace Handout via Reuters

The pull-aside was booked for 7:40 p.m. at a gathering Trump is hosting during the U.N. General Assembly. No joint appearance was planned nor a detailed agenda released.

Participants in the pull-aside meeting with Rodriguez included State Secretary Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

"We held a historic meeting with the President of the United States, Donald Trump, during which we discussed strengthening the bilateral relationship between our countries and advancing a cooperation agenda in strategic areas such as energy, mining, security, and other matters of mutual interest," Rodriguez said in a statement on Telegram.

"We expressed our gratitude to President Trump and his administration for the steadfast support provided during the emergency caused by the earthquakes of June 24, as well as for their backing of our country's reintegration into multilateral forums," she wrote, according to a translation. "Venezuela and the United States share a historic relationship that, in this new phase, we are called upon to steer through dialogue. We will continue to pursue a diplomacy that serves the national interest, aimed at achieving concrete results and collective benefits for the Venezuelan people."

Rodriguez landed Monday for what is her first trip to the United States since taking office. She is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told reporters about the upcoming meeting on a call.

"The president will host a U.N. General Assembly leaders' reception. There, he'll participate in a pull-aside with the acting president Rodriguez of Venezuela," Waltz said. He did not say what they would discuss.

Trump spoke to the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, hours before the reception, where he called Maduro an "outlaw dictator," adding that hundreds of political prisoners had been freed since the capture. Trump pointed to the January raid as proof Washington would use its "unmatched military might" to protect its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"To the victor belong the spoils," he said, calling an oil deal his administration signed with Caracas last month "perhaps the biggest deal ever made."

He has said he wants $100 billion in investment to flow into Venezuela's oil industry.

On Sept. 16, Trump removed Venezuela from the U.S. list of countries that have failed to combat drug trafficking. The country had been on that list since 2005.

"Given the positive steps taken under interim President Delcy Rodríguez, I have determined Venezuela should no longer be designated as having failed demonstrably to fulfill its drug control commitments," the presidential determination said. "I expect to see continued, measurable progress from the interim government in dismantling narcoterrorist groups and stopping drug trafficking through Venezuela to the United States."

Last month the two governments signed an energy agreement covering 65 billion barrels of reserves. Trump called it in a Truth Social post "the biggest oil deal in world history."

Rodriguez said the pact is meant to last 25 years and to develop 17 strategic oil fields with a production target of more than 1.5 million barrels a day.

"This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people," Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X.

Rodriguez, 56, was born in Caracas and trained as a lawyer. Maduro named her vice president in 2018. U.S. forces captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Jan. 3 and flew them to the United States on narcoterrorism and drug charges. Venezuela's high court then designated Rodriguez interim president. Maduro has pleaded not guilty.

Reuters contributed to this report

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 17:00

Pages