Trump To Strengthen Wall Street Ties With Private Dinner At White House Tonight

President Trump will host a private dinner Wednesday with top Wall Street executives as he looks to strengthen ties with the business community and encourage new investment in U.S. manufacturing, according to CBS News.

Invited guests include JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Nasdaq’s Adena Friedman, Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, Morgan Stanley’s Ted Pick, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, and Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon. The dinner follows a similar White House gathering in September with major tech CEOs, part of a broader effort to align corporate leaders behind Trump’s economic agenda.

CBS writes that Trump has pointed to the stock market as evidence of his success, recently telling 60 Minutes, “We’re doing really well, and everybody knows it.” JPMorgan recently pledged $1.5 trillion over the next decade to support “industries critical to national economic security and resiliency.”

His relationship with Dimon has long fluctuated. After calling him a “Highly overrated Globalist” in 2023, Trump later said he had “a lot of respect for Jamie Dimon.” Dimon has criticized Trump’s tariffs as potentially harmful but later said they had been “greatly moderated.”

Trump’s policies have occasionally unsettled business leaders, from steep tariffs and immigration fee hikes to pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut rates. Still, many on Wall Street see renewed alignment between the administration’s pro-growth stance and their own priorities. As Dimon told 60 Minutes, “People were angry at whatever they called the state – the ‘swamp.’ Ineffective government. That people wanted kind of more pro-growth and pro-business policies, that they didn't want to be lectured to on social policies continuously.”

President Trump’s relationship with Wall Street this term has been pragmatic and opportunistic. He’s brought top executives into the White House to discuss policy and announce new investments, presenting himself as a pro-business president focused on growth through deregulation, tax breaks, and manufacturing. The outreach has strengthened his ties to the financial sector and underscored his reliance on corporate support to drive economic momentum.

Still, the partnership has its tensions. Bankers and investors back Trump’s pro-growth agenda but remain uneasy about his tariffs, trade volatility, and pressure on the Federal Reserve. Market drops after tariff announcements and disagreements over monetary policy have shown how quickly Wall Street’s confidence can waver.

Even so, many in finance see Trump as a valuable ally. His administration has created a favorable environment for business and markets, and figures like Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink remain key voices in shaping his economic plans.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 14:40

US Sanctions Push Indian Refiners Away From Russian Crude

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

All but two Indian refiners have skipped placing orders for Russian crude for December after the U.S. sanctioned Russia’s top oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, sources with knowledge of the purchases told Bloomberg on Tuesday. 

India’s refiners, which have come to rely on cheap Russian crude in the past three years, have withdrawn from the December purchasing window which typically closes by November 10.   

Five large refiners, including state-owned Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL), and private firms Reliance Industries Ltd and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd, have not requested any Russian crude for December. 

Combined, these five firms have imported two-thirds of all Russian crude oil into India year to date, according to Kpler data cited by Bloomberg. 

Only India’s biggest state-held refiner, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), and Nayara Energy, in which Rosneft holds 49%, have purchased crude from Russia for December, per Bloomberg’s sources. 

At the end of October, following the U.S. sanctions on Russia, IOC acquired five December-arriving cargoes of Russian crude from non-sanctioned sellers. 

IOC has bought about 3.5 million barrels of Russia’s ESPO crude at about the same price as the Dubai quotes for delivery at an eastern Indian port in December, a trade sources told Reuters, without naming the sellers of the Russian oil. 

IOC has vowed that it would fully comply with international sanctions related to crude oil imports from Russia.  

IOC is also looking to buy 24 million barrels of crude oil from the Americas in the first quarter of next year to replace lost Russian supply. 

Indian refiners are pivoting away from Russian crude and are buying additional barrels from the Middle East and the Americas to offset what is expected to be a steep decline in Russian loadings in December and January. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 14:20

Dems Dump New 'Epstein Files' With Trump - Redact Witness Who Already Exonerated Him

New Epstein files have dropped - this time from House Democrats, and Trump is mentioned. But while they're taking victory laps on X, it didn't take long for sleuths to uncover that the dems redacted the name of a witness who already exonerated Trump in testimony, and revealed a weird relationship between Epstein and a 'famous' journalist. 

In an email exchange between Epstein and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein notes that an alleged victim had "spent hours at my house" with Trump.

"I want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is trump," Epstein wrote in an April 2011 message to Maxwell.

"[Victim] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned," he continues.

"I have been thinking about that ..." Maxwell replied. 

In another email between Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff from 2019, Epstein writes that [Victim] mara lago ... [redacted] ... trump said he asked me to resign, never a member  ever. .  of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.'

This of course supports Trump's assertion that he was pissed that Epstein was recruiting at Mar-a-Lago and asked him (Ghislaine) to stop. 

And in a 2015 reply to Epstein, months after Trump declared his candidacy for president, Wolff says: "I think you should let him hang himself."

"If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency," Wolff continues. "You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win [the election], you could save him, generating a debt." 

Which of course begs the question as to why anti-Trump journalist Michael Wolff (who wrote 'Fire and Fury') was advising Epstein on political strategy re: Trump in the first place. 

BUT WAIT?

As attorney and researcher 'Technofog' points out, the emails reference Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre - who explicitly denied Trump did anything wrong. 

Via The Reactionary (go subscribe if you haven't already): 

Of course, context is necessary. Epstein’s email contains serious allegations - allegations that were denied by Virginia Giuffre, the redacted “Victim” named in the email.

Giuffre was deposed in November 2016 as part of her lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. You can read excerpts from her deposition here (starts on page 12).

Giuffre was asked specific questions about Donald Trump - his familiarity with Epstein, whether Trump committed any wrongdoing, etc. And Giuffre cleared Trump. Here are the relevant excerpts from a discussion about Giuffre’s previous interview with a reporter:

Q. All right. What’s inaccurate about the last statement on that page?

Giuffre: “Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s.” That part is true.” “He didn’t partake in any” of — “any sex with any of us but he flirted with me.” It’s true that he didn’t partake in any sex with us, and but it’s not true that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me.

Giuffre: Then the next sentence is, “He’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, ‘you’ve got the life.’” I never said that to her.

Q. When you say, “he didn’t partake in any sex with any of us,” who is “us”?

Giuffre: Girls. Just —

Q. How do you know who Donald Trump — Trump had sex with?

Giuffre: Oh, I didn’t physically see him have sex with any of the girls, so I can’t say who he had sex with in his whole life or not, but I just know it wasn’t with me when I was with other girls.

Q. And who were the other girls that you were with in Donald Trump’s presence?

Giuffre: None. There — I worked for Donald Trump, and I’ve met him probably a few times.

Q. When have you met him?

Giuffre: At Mar-a-Lago. My dad and him, I wouldn’t say they were friends, but my dad knew him and they would talk all the time — well, not all the time but when they saw each other.

Q. Have you ever been in Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein’s presence with one another?

Giuffre: No.

Q. What is your basis for your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey’s?

Giuffre: Jeffrey told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.

Q. But you never observed them together?

Giuffre: No, that that I can actually remember. I mean, not off the top of my head, no.

Q. When did Donald Trump flirt with you?

Giuffre: He didn’t. That’s what’s inaccurate.

Q. Did you ever see Donald Trump at Jeffrey’s home?

Giuffre: Not that I can remember.

There you have it. Trump never flirted with or had relations with Virginia Giuffre. She never saw Trump in Epstein’s presence or at his residence. She never saw Trump or met with Trump outside of Mar-a-Lago - certainly not at Epstein’s home.

But the fabrications don’t stop there. From another email released today, in 2019, Epstein would spin a different story about Trump: that Epstein was never asked to resign because he was not a member, that “of course he [Trump] knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

But that’s false - Epstein was a member. And as we know from Trump’s own statements and from reporting from anti-Trump authors of “The Grifter’s Club: Trump, Mar-a-Lago, and the Selling of the Presidency”, Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Epstein was hitting on the teenage daughter of a club member.

And as to asking Ghislaine “to stop”? It is public knowledge that Epstein/Maxwell were recruiting spa workers from Mar-a-Lago - Trump last discussed that issue this past summer. That was part of the dispute between Trump and Esptein. There is no allegation that Trump or anyone else at Mar-a-Lago knew of Epstein’s true motives.

Finally, there are these emails between Epstein and Wolff, where Wolff tips Epstein off to CNN’s planned questions to Trump about Epstein. When asked by Epstein what Trump’s answer should be, Wolff suggests: “I think you should let him hang himself.” Wolff further explains how Trump could potentially blackmail Trump, depending on Trump’s answers.

It should be noted that Wolff does not mention scandalous ties between Epstein and Trump that could be used as leverage. Instead, Wolff references Trump and Epstein’s connection (by way of a home or plane) that predated the disclose of Epstein’s crimes. It was a plan of guilt by association, not guilt from any of Trump’s conduct.

Add to that the fact that Wolff is assisting Epstein with public relations advice against Trump. A real upstanding member of the media.

Here’s a different slant: this is not a Trump scandal but a Democrat scandal.

Virginia Giuffre was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She cleared Trump of all wrongdoing under penalty of perjury. And in April 2025 she committed suicide. Giuffre is no longer here to defend her statements - but Democrats, through Epstein, are saying she lied under oath.

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 13:25

Mediocre, Tailing 10Y Auction Sees Subdued Foreign Demand

With the bond market closed on Tuesday for Veterans Day, the week's staggered Treasury auction schedule caught up with where it should be at 1pm ET today when the Treasury sold $42BN in 10Y notes as part of the quarterly refunding exercise, in what was a mediocre auction.

The auction priced at a high yield of 4.074% down from 4.117% last month, and the second lowest since last October; it also tailed the When Issued 4.068% by 0.6bps, the second straight tail (followed a 0.3bps tail in October).

The bid to cover also disappointed, dropping from 2.478 to 2.433, which was the second lowest since August 2024. 

The internals were mediocre at best, with Indirects taking down 67.0%, up from 66.8% but well below the 70.2% recent average. And with Directs awarded 22.55%, Dealers were left holding 10.5%, the most since August.

While the tailing 10Y auction was on the weak side, and the market reacted with pushing yields out modestly across the curve, they were already at session lows so there was certainly space for the move in a day that has another midday swoon across the tech space, with bitcoin plunged all morning (again).

 

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 13:21

Trump Says He Has Obligation To Sue BBC For 'Defrauding The Public' With Jan. 6 Speech Edits

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said Nov. 10 that he has an obligation to pursue legal action against the BBC over edits made to his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, that was shown in the UK broadcaster’s documentary.

In a Fox News interview that aired on Nov. 10, Trump said he may sue the BBC for editing his speech in a way that “defrauded the public” and made him “sound radical.”

“They defrauded the public, and they’ve admitted it,” the president said. “This is within one of our great allies, you know, this is supposedly our great ally.”

The BBC’s “Panorama” documentary spliced together quotations from different parts of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech, making it seem as though he delivered a continuous statement encouraging supporters to march with him to the U.S. Capitol and “fight like hell.” The documentary was aired one week before the 2024 presidential election.

“That’s a pretty sad event. They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical,” Trump said in the interview.

“They showed me the results later on, the results of what they did, how they butchered it up, but it was very dishonest, and the head man quit and a lot of other people quit.”

When asked whether he would file a defamation lawsuit against the British broadcaster, Trump replied, “Well, I think I have an obligation to do it, because you can’t allow people to do that.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the BBC for comment.

A letter from Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito has demanded that the BBC immediately retract “the false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements,” apologize, and “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused,” or face legal action for $1 billion in damages.

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

“If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. EST, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages,” the letter, obtained by The Epoch Times, states.

A BBC spokesperson told The Epoch Times by email on Nov. 11 that it will review the letter and “respond directly in due course.”

The broadcaster issued an apology after the resignations of its director-general, Tim Davie, and its CEO of news, Deborah Turness, on Nov. 9.

(Left) BBC News CEO Deborah Turness at an event in London on Oct. 13, 2022. (Right) BBC Director-General Tim Davie at the BBC World Service in London on April 28, 2022. Leon Neal/Getty Images, Hannah McKay/AFP via Getty Images

Established by a Royal Charter, the BBC is a public service broadcaster principally funded through an annual license fee paid by UK households, according to its website.

The news corporation was accused of selectively editing the speech Trump made on the day of the 2021 U.S. Capitol breach in its broadcast on Oct. 28, 2024, titled “Trump: A Second Chance?”

The “Panorama” episode spliced together clips from the speech, creating the impression that Trump said, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you / and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

In the original remark, the first part of the spliced footage, when he said, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you,” came 15 minutes into the speech, and the “We fight like hell” line came a full 54 minutes later.

Supporters of President Donald Trump protest at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File

The program also made it appear that members of the group known as the Proud Boys were spurred to march on the Capitol by the president’s words.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah sent a letter to the UK’s Culture, Media, and Sport Committee on Nov. 10 apologizing for an “error of judgement” regarding the editing of the speech.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 13:05

SpaceX Cellular Starlink Now Beaming To Apple Watches In Canada & Japan

Dick Tracy has entered the 21st century, kind of. 

(Credit: Andrew Gebhart/PCMag)

Apple Watch owners in Japan and Canada can now receive cellular Starlink service on the Ultra 3, Series 11 and SE 3 models, according to a quarterly earnings report from Japanese telecom operator KDDI, spotted by Ookla analyst Mike Dano and reported by PC Mag. The service is provided by KDDI's Au wireless carrier - and only provides text messaging service where watch owners can't access traditional cellular networks. 

"The number of [Starlink] connections has reached approximately 2.7 million with 76 compatible models and approximately 10 million devices. And as announced today, au Starlink Direct now supports Apple Watch."https://t.co/BSLvkSEp0x via KDDI

— Mike Dano (@mikeddano) November 6, 2025

Au also updated its support page to note the new compatibility between the Apple Watch and SpaceX's cellular Starlink. All Japanese customers need to do is buy the cellular version of the watch and sign up for Au's Starlink Direct service. 

In Canada, SpaceX partner, Rogers Communications, has also added support for the Apple Watch - with Cellular Starlink now available as a free beta to all Canadian users. 

PC Mag suggests that T-Mobile, SpaceX's partner in the US, could bring the same capability stateside - where it already supports ground-based cellular plans for the Apple Watch, and provides T-Satellite service for over 70 phone models, including the iPhone 13 and iPhone Air. 

The capability would also enable more Apple Watch owners to receive satellite connectivity whenever they travel through a cellular dead zone. In September, when Apple introduced its new smartwatch models, only the Apple Watch Ultra 3 featured built-in satellite connectivity for emergency response. The same model also features satellite-powered texting and location sharing, but only if you have an active carrier plan associated with the watch. -PC Mag

Meanwhile, Apple satellite partner Globalstar is considering selling itself to SpaceX, suggesting that the cellular Starlink system may be about to rapidly expand. The technology can support not only satellite-powered texting, but general data transmission to a growing number of Android and iOS apps - potentially even video calls. 

h/t Capital.news

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 12:45

The Problem Of The Meatpackers

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

President Trump is boldly facing the problem of high meat prices but also dealing with the financial strains on farmers themselves.

The issue is reconciling the two.

Lower prices are great for consumers but also add to the financial problems of small farmers.

Gradually, Trump has come to the conclusion that the real bottleneck is with meatpackers themselves, which is one of the oldest corporate monopolies in U.S. history.

He has posted the following:

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation. We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply. Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People. I am asking the DOJ to act expeditiously. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

With this posting, he has put his finger on the problem. Rep Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) points out that “Four meat packers control 85 percent of the meat processed in the U.S.”

Immediately, however, friends of mine in the free-market movement cried foul. He is blaming private enterprise whereas these corporations should be left alone by government to do whatever they want. They treated Trump’s call for intervention as some kind of imposition of government force on the freedom of commerce.

Who is correct here?

Once you understand the history, which goes very deep, you can see that Trump has hit an important point.

The meatpacking industry has been consolidating since the 1880s. This was codified with the Pure Food and Drug Act signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, alongside the Meat Inspection Act.

It was the first federal law to regulate food and pharmaceutical products. It not only prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded food, drugs, medicines, and liquors, it forced inspection on all U.S. meat processing and laid the foundation for the modern Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. It thereby created or really codified the meat cartel in America, something that has vexed small meat producers ever since.

Part of the reason for the lack of understanding here traces to a false historical understanding.

In the conventional historiography, Upton Sinclair wrote the novel called “The Jungle” that exposed the evils of the industry. As a result, Congress intervened to clean up the industry with new regulations. This became the headline legislation and event that set the agenda for the construction of the entire regulatory state in the United States.

The trouble is that this history is not true. It’s a fable.

The real story was told by Murray Rothbard and many other economic historians. Keep in mind that meatpacking as an industry separate from farming and ranching was a relatively new development. Traditionally, the industry was vertically integrated such that the people who raised the animals also slaughtered and processed them. The meatpackers and processors were attempting to replace these traditional practices. There is nothing wrong with that except that they used government power to unfairly tilt the scales in their favor.

The problems began in the 1880s when meatpackers sought to penetrate European markets. Imports were banned because the Europeans did not trust the quality. The industry then went to the government to certify the cleanliness and safety of their meat. The scheme worked and set forth a model for a different kind of competition. Industry would unite with government as a way of assuring consumers and also driving up the costs of entry into markets such that small processing could not afford them.

As Rothbard writes:

“In February 1906, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was published and revealed many alleged horrors of the meat packing industry. Shortly thereafter, Roosevelt sent two Washington bureaucrats, Commissioner of Labor Charles P. Neill and civil service lawyer James B. Reynolds, to investigate the Chicago industry. The famous ‘Neill-Reynolds’ report that apparently confirmed Sinclair’s findings, in fact, only revealed the ignorance of the officials, as later congressional hearings indicated that they poorly understood how slaughterhouses worked and confused their inherently foul nature with unsanitary conditions.”

After “The Jungle” came out, J. Ogden Armour, owner of one of the biggest packing firms, defended government inspection of meat and said that the large packers had always favored and pushed for inspection. Armour wrote:

“Attempt to evade it [government inspection] would be, from the purely commercial viewpoint, suicidal. No packer can do an interstate or export business without Government inspection. Self-interest forces him to make use of it. Self-interest likewise demands that he shall not receive meats or by-products from any small packer, either for export or other use, unless that small packer’s plant is also ‘official’—that is, under United States Government inspection.”

There you have it. The big players in the industry actually favored government intervention.

Thomas E. Wilson, representing the large Chicago packers, said the following during the Congressional debate: “We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection, also to the adoption of the sanitary regulations that will insure the very best possible conditions. ... We have always felt that Government inspection, under proper regulations, was an advantage to the live stock and agricultural interests and to the consumer.”

Imagine, that was 120 years ago, and we are still dealing with the same problem. No meat can be sold to the consumer without being processed by a plant certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Even the quality of meats on the shelves are named according to official processing: USDA Prime, USDA Choice, and so on.

This has gradually put enormous pressure on small farmers who have to pay exorbitant prices for processing, when cheaper alternatives are readily available. Most small farmers would love to process their own meat on site and sell it directly to the consumers. But federal law forbids them from doing so. This has been true since 1906 and remains true today. The devastating results are the crisis we see today.

What about the issue of safety? Federal regulation did nothing to improve it and much to degrade it. They used the “poke and sniff” method to investigate safety, and did so for decades after, even though this method was known to spread pathogens from one carcass to another. It would have been much safer without federal intervention.

I’m thrilled and surprised that we are finally getting some discussion of this important topic today. The meat cartel certainly needs to be broken up. But the best method of doing so is simply to dismantle the regulatory impediments to competition. Farmers should be allowed to process and sell meat in any way that is advantageous to them. You would think that this would be an easy sell in Congress.

Part of the reason this topic is so triggering is that people do not understand the real history of the U.S. meat industry. If people did understand, it would become much clearer how it is that so many federal agencies are captured by industry interests. Indeed, capture might be the wrong word. They were set up to help big business in the first place. Helping small business instead requires the real restoration of a genuine free market.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 11:05

More Doves Incoming: Atlanta Fed President Bostic To Retiring Feb 2026

More turnover at the Fed ahead of what can be a historic, for the US central bank, year as Trump prepares to stack the Fed with a deep bench of uber-doves. 

With the "fired" Lisa Cook's lawsuit marinating at the Supreme Court, moments ago the Atlanta Fed announced that its president Raphael Bostic would retire at the end of his current term in February.

Bostic, who in the press release was described as "the first African American and openly gay president of a regional Federal Reserve Bank in its 111-year history" took the helm at the Atlanta Fed in 2017; he will step down on Feb. 28, the Atlanta Fed said in a statement.

“I’m proud of what we accomplished during my tenure to turn the lofty goal of an economy that works for everyone into more of a reality, and I look forward to discovering new ways to advance that bold vision in my next chapter,” Bostic said in the Wednesday statement.

Bostic, a hawk who has been vocal this year about the risks of lingering inflation and urged his colleagues to be cautious about lowering interest rates due to tariffs, is perhaps best known for a big trading scandal, where trades on Bostic's behalf took place during prohibited "blackout" periods around Federal Open Market Committee meetings 154 times between March 2018 and March 2023. 

He also filed inaccurate disclosure forms, held more Treasury securities than allowed and twice executed trades that were different than those that he sought central bank clearance for.

In 2024, the Fed's in-house watchdog said Bostic's trading and investing broke central bank rules, and Bostic created the appearance he acted on confidential information and the appearance of a conflict of interest, in violation of the Atlanta Fed's code of conduct. However, perhaps due to his background (see above) the report said investigators found no evidence that Bostic in reality used inside information about Fed deliberations or had financial conflicts of interest.

While Bostic doesn’t vote on monetary policy decisions this year, Bostic said he supported the Fed’s two rate reductions in September and October. He has emphasized, however, that monetary policy should remain restrictive while inflation is still above the central bank’s 2% goal.

His departure will further shake up the US central bank at a time when it’s experiencing other high-profile personnel changes and unprecedented political pressure from the President Donald Trump to lower borrowing costs. Bostic will leave a few months before the Fed comes under new leadership, with Chair Jerome Powell’s tenure at the head of the central bank set to end in May.

The Trump administration has also been weighing options for exerting more influence over the Fed’s regional banks as a way to expand its sway over interest rates.

All 12 regional Fed presidents have five-year terms that end on Feb. 28. They are eligible for reappointment after a review process that is currently underway.

Cheryl Venable, first vice president and chief operating officer of the Atlanta Fed, will step in as interim president if a new leader is not appointed by Feb. 28. The Atlanta Fed will next hold a voting position on the Federal Open Market Committee in 2027.

The Atlanta Fed said its board of directors will form a search committee and that new details about the process will be announced later. And while Trump does not have direct influence in the choice of Bostic's replacement, he certainly can nudge the decisionmaking process as CNBC's Steve Liesman noted... and he will.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 10:33

JPMorgan Launches Dollar Deposit Token On Coinbase's Base Network

Authored by Adrian Zmudzinski via CoinTelegraph.com,

JPMorgan Chase & Co. — the world’s biggest bank by market capitalization — has begun deploying a token representing deposits held at the bank, called JPM Coin.

According to a Wednesday Bloomberg report, JPMorgan’s institutional clients now have access to the JPM Coin. The bank’s blockchain division co-lead, Naveen Mallela, told Bloomberg that the token represents US dollar deposits at the bank and allows users to send and receive money on the blockchain created by US crypto exchange Coinbase, called Base, a platform endorsed by the bank.

In mid-June, Mallela announced that a fixed number of JPMD tokens would be transferred to Coinbase on Base in the following days. The transfer was part of a pilot phase that was followed by allowing Coinbase’s institutional clients to access the bank’s deposit token.

JPM Coin enables instant, 24/7 payment processing, which is significantly faster than the typical times seen in the US banking system. The news follows this week’s announcement by JPMorgan and Singapore multinational banking group DBS that they are developing a blockchain-based tokenization framework to enable onchain transfers between their deposit token ecosystems.

JPMorgan had not responded to Cointelegraph’s inquiry by publication.

Not a stablecoin

JPM Coin is a so-called deposit token, meaning it represents a direct claim on a bank deposit and is therefore a regulated liability of the issuing bank.

This is the primary distinction between this type of token and traditional stablecoins, which are issued by a private entity and backed by assets to maintain their value.

Much like the broader US financial industry, JPMorgan appears to be doubling down on its commitment to tokenization and blockchain technology.

At the end of October, JPMorgan’s private bank and asset management divisions initiated the first transaction on the forthcoming Kinexys Fund Flow fund tokenization platform.

JPMorgan bets on crypto

The company also showed enthusiasm toward the broader crypto ecosystem, not just blockchain-based tokenization.

In late October, JPMorgan was reported to be planning to let clients use Bitcoin and Ether as collateral for loans.

In mid-January, JPMorgan suggested that a Solana ETF would attract $3 billion to $6 billion, while an XRP ETF would garner $4 billion to $8 billion in new investments. The bank was also recently reported to be developing plans to offer cryptocurrency trading services.

Also in October, JPMorgan informed its financial advisers that all clients will be able to invest in cryptocurrency funds. Until then, advisers were restricted to offering such products to high-net-worth investors with over $1.5 million in assets and an aggressive risk profile.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 10:25

OpenAI Ordered To Produce 20 Million User Conversations To NY Times

OpenAI has been ordered by a federal judge to turn over 20 million anonymized ChatGPT user logs to the NY Times and other newspapers suing the chat giant over its generative AI model. 

In a Nov. 7 order revealed today, New York Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang said producing the logs in whole is appropriate - granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel production. The newspapers had demanded the user logs to inspect how ChatGPT is used to create outputs they say infringe their copyrighted works. OpenAI pushed back, citing privacy concerns. 

Wang, however, did not find their argument compelling in explaining how consumers' privacy rights were at risk given that there's a protective order in place, and identifying information would be removed from the logs (so anyone who's uploaded their tax return or a legal document is safe?).

OpenAI has until Nov. 14 to hand over the data - the latest twist in the hotly contested discovery process in the newspapers' copyright lawsuits against OpenAI, Bloomberg Law reports. 

OpenAI had contested the wholesale production of the 20 million user logs and asked to narrow the sample, saying in a Oct. 30 briefing that the ask was inappropriate and would disclose private user conversations that had nothing to do with the copyright issue in the case.

Newspaper-plaintiffs including New York Times Co., however, pushed back and said without the user logs they couldn’t conduct expert analysis on topics such as how ChatGPT worked to pull news content for its users or how often the AI model hallucinated and generated false outputs attributed to the outlets. -BBG

The fight over user logs dates back to April - before lawsuits against OpenAI by various news outlets were consolidated for pretrial proceedings. In May, Wang issued a preservation order, rejecting OpenAI's argument that the request was "sweeping" and "invasive."

NYT's lawsuit, filed in Dec. 2023, claims that the companies violated copyright laws by using Times' content to train their AI models, including ChatGPT and Microsoft's Copilot.

"Times journalism is the work of thousands of journalists, whose employment costs hundreds of millions of dollars per year," reads the complaint. "Defendants have effectively avoided spending the billions of dollars that The Times invested in creating that work by taking it without permission or compensation."

The lawsuit has potentially huge implications over 'fair use' of copyrighted materials, a complex legal doctrine governing factors such as the purpose of use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work.

The legal landscape surrounding generative-AI is unsettled, with the technology still in its early days. There are other lawsuits that could test the rights of AI companies to “scrape” content from the web to train AI tools, including one by several prominent book authors against OpenAI. In February, Getty Images sued the AI art company Stability AI in Delaware, alleging that it had infringed on Getty’s copyrights. Stability AI at the time said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. -WSJ

According to the NYT, AI tools developed by Microsoft and OpenAI have significantly increased their valuations due to the data 'scraped' for training.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 10:10

Coinbase Leaves Delaware For "Greener Pastures" In Texas As Exodus Continues

For more than half a century, Delaware stood as America's corporate capital, renowned for its business-friendly laws, respected Chancery Court, and consistent legal rulings. But in recent years, leftist activist lawmakers and politicized judges have undermined that very foundation, sparking an exodus of major companies seeking stability and fairness to more welcoming states like Texas and Nevada. 

On Wednesday morning, Coinbase joined the growing exodus, announcing on its website and in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal that it is moving its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas.

"For decades, Delaware was known for predictable court outcomes, respect for the judgment of corporate boards, and speedy resolutions," Grewal wrote in the op-ed. 

However, he pointed out that recent inconsistent Chancery Court rulings and reliance on ad hoc legislative fixes do not create a sustainable business environment. 

"Our decision to leave is about ensuring more predictable opportunities for the company, our shareholders, our customers and the new on-chain ecosystem we're building," he noted, adding, "Texas offers efficiency and predictability, in part thanks to recent corporate-law reforms that enhance governance flexibility and legal predictability." 

Grewal concluded, "Delaware wasn't always the go-to choice for companies. At one point it was New Jersey, and before that New York. We've reached another inflection point in corporate law. The more states that can credibly attract companies, the better—and we'd like to see Delaware step up to stay in the mix. But as for Coinbase, you can find us in Texas." 

Coinbase's website headline announcing a new state of incorporation is great...

The exodus list from Delaware increases:

• Tesla: Moved to Texas.

• SpaceX: Moved to Texas.

• Trump Media & Technology: Moved to Florida.

• Dropbox: Moved to Nevada.

• TripAdvisor: Moved to Nevada.

• Roblox: Moved to Nevada.

• Pershing Square: Moved to Nevada.

• The Trade Desk: Moved to Nevada.

• AMC Networks: Moved to Nevada.

• Madison Square Garden Sports: Moved to Nevada.

• Fidelity National Financial: Voted to move to Nevada.

One of the most high-profile exits came in June 2024, when Tesla shareholders voted to move the company's incorporation to Texas. The decision followed a Delaware judge's ruling that voided Elon Musk's massive compensation package, prompting Musk to urge other companies to abandon Delaware. Has since passed (read report).

At the time, Musk said, "She's a radical far-left activist cosplaying as a judge." 

She’s a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 3, 2024

Today's development has Musk's attention... 

Let far-left Democrat-run states erode confidence with business leaders by their unhinged leftist lawmakers and woke judges, because their policies are driving people and businesses away - far away. Meanwhile, red states are gaining power as blue states rapidly slide into the abyss, plagued with violent crime, affordability crisis, illegal aliens, the rise of Marxism, and shrinking populations and tax bases.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 09:55

House Set To End Historic Shutdown After Democrats Cave

Members of the House of Representatives are back on Capitol Hill today for the first time in 54 days, to vote on legislation that would reopen the federal government by midnight, ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history.

REUTERS/Anna Rose Layden A Path to Reopening

Early Wednesday morning, around 1:30 a.m., the House Rules Committee cleared the way for lawmakers to take up a Senate-passed funding package. The plan combines a continuing resolution to keep the government funded through Jan. 30 with a three-bill “minibus” package - when we get to do this all over again! (joy of all joys) Of note, the Minibus provisions are good until Sept. 30. 

• It will also reinstate federal workers fired during the shutdown and guarantee back pay. It will also prevent further layoffs through the end of January. 

• It also excludes an extension of advanced Obamacare premium tax credits - which Democrats caved on at the 11th hour. 

The full House vote is expected later this evening, likely around 7 p.m., Punchbowl News reports - after which it will head to Trump's desk for his signature.

Republicans on the committee rejected Democratic attempts to amend the bill, including one proposal to extend expiring Affordable Care Act premium subsidies. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is expected to preside over the swearing-in of Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) at 4 p.m. before debate begins. Grijalva, elected in September to fill her late father’s seat, has faced an unusually long delay before taking office - a delay that has frustrated Democrats, particularly because her vote is needed to release a new cache of Epstein files.

As Rabobank notes:

The end of the government shutdown should lead to the (delayed) release of economic data collected by federal agencies. This will end the episode of limited visibility for policy-makers and private sector decision-makers, who had to rely mostly on data provided by the private sector. The Employment Report for September may be one of the first to be published, because it was originally scheduled for October 3, so it was likely almost or completely finished. This will be lagging data, but it could confirm the continued labor market weakness assumed by the FOMC and shown in other labor market data for September. The Employment Report for October may take more time to produce. What’s more, the quality of data collection in October (and early November) may have been compromised, undermining their reliability. This could even have a longer-lasting impact on year-on-year data, through November 2026.

Tight Margins and Calm GOP Leadership

With a razor-thin two-vote majority, Johnson and GOP leaders are urging all 219 Republican members to be in Washington. Flight disruptions that delayed lawmakers earlier in the week had eased significantly Tuesday, giving the leadership hope for a full turnout.

Despite the high stakes, Republican leadership and the Trump administration appear confident in support within their ranks. There are no immediate plans for Trump to directly lobby House Republicans, though aides said that could change if the vote tightens.

Several key conservatives - including Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Victoria Spartz (R-IN), and Warren Davidson (R-OH) - are being closely watched. Greene, who has rebranded her political image in recent weeks, has been sharply critical of Johnson’s handling of the shutdown.

That said, Rep. Andy Harris, leader of the House Freedom Caucus, offered his support - a signal that others on the party's more conservative flank might fall in line.

Democrats Regroup After Failed Strategy

For Democrats, the six-week standoff has underscored the limits of using shutdowns as leverage. Party leaders had hoped the funding lapse would force Trump to break with Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and negotiate directly with Democrats - a strategy that failed to materialize.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held his caucus together throughout the impasse, with only Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) breaking ranks on the initial continuing resolution. Some Democrats have expressed frustration over messaging as the shutdown winds down, arguing the party should pivot toward highlighting Republican responsibility for rising health care costs.

Janet Mills, the Democratic governor of Maine, criticized members of her party on MSNBC for backing the measure to reopen the government, saying Congress lacks a “backbone.” Thune’s promise for a future vote on renewing the Obamacare health insurance credits “doesn’t mean much to me,” said Mills, who is running for Senate.

Yet the moderates saw the future Senate vote — coupled with the legislation’s protections for the federal workforce and full-year spending for food aid — as a path to reopening the government. -Bloomberg 

There’s also growing chatter among House Democrats about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) leadership, though the calls to replace him carry no practical weight in the upper chamber.

Getting Back To Normal

On Tuesday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned that there would be "massively more disruption as we come into the weekend if the government doesn’t open," adding "It is going to radically slow down, so the House has to do its work." 

It could still take days for air travel to return to normal and probably longer for most of the 42 million low-income Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to receive delayed benefits. Lengthy backlogs and delays are likely across the federal government as it reopens. -Bloomberg

What Comes Next

Once the funding package passes, Johnson plans to send members home for the remainder of the week. The speaker has warned of “long days and long nights” ahead - but not this week.

In the weeks to come, Johnson faces three major challenges:

1. A Short-Term Fix: The new continuing resolution extends funding for just 79 days, meaning another shutdown fight looms early next year. Negotiators must still resolve disagreements over contentious appropriations bills covering Labor-HHS, Commerce-Justice-Science, Defense, and Homeland Security.

2. Health Care Deadlines: ACA premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year. Johnson will need to present a credible health care reform plan to prevent moderates from joining a discharge petition to extend the subsidies. Passing major health legislation within 49 days — during the holiday season — is a tall order.

3. Intraparty Disputes: Conservative members including Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Austin Scott (R-GA) are pushing to repeal a provision in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill allowing senators to sue the government if their phone records were obtained by the Justice Department.

Adding to the tension, by the end of the day, the Jeffrey Epstein records discharge petition is expected to reach 218 signatures, triggering a full House vote on whether to force the Justice Department to release the complete Epstein files. Vulnerable Republicans could face political blowback if they oppose the measure.

If tonight’s vote proceeds as expected, the federal government will reopen for the first time since Oct. 1 - but the brief reprieve may only set the stage for another high-stakes funding showdown early next year.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 09:40

Oil Prices Slide As OPEC Glut Fears Trump IEA's Demand Optimism

Oil prices are tumbling this morning, erasing yesterday's gain as OPEC and IEA unveiled their latest global supply/demand outlooks...

OPEC flipped estimates for global oil markets in the third quarter from a deficit to a surplus, as US production exceeded expectations while the group itself ramped up supplies.

Demand:

• The global oil demand growth forecast for 2025 remains at about 1.3mln BPD unchanged from last month’s assessment.

• In the OECD, oil demand s forecast to grow by about 0.1mln BPD in 2025 while the non-OECD is forecast to grow by about 1.2mln BPD.

• In 2026. global oil demand is forecast to grow by about 1.4mln BPD Y/Y, unchanged from last month's assessment.

• The OECD is forecast to grow by about 01mln BPD Y/Y. while the non-OECD is forecast to grow by about 1.2mln Y/Y.

Supply:

• Non-DoC liquids product on (i.e. liquids production from countries net participating in the Declaration of Cooperation) is forecast to grow by about 0.9mln BPD Y/Y in 2025 revised up slightly by around 0.1mln BPD from last month s assessment, mainly due to received historical data n 2025.

• The main growth drivers are expected to be the US. Brazil. Canada, and Argentina

• The non-DoC liquids product on growth forecast for 2025 remains at 0 6mln BPD Y/Y. with Brazil. Canada. US and Argentina as the main growth drivers.

The report published this morning also indicated that the OPEC+ alliance pumped more crude than it estimated was needed last quarter.

Saudi Arabia has steered the coalition to fast-track the revival of halted supply this year in a bid to reclaim global market share.

This month, key members showed their first signs of slowing that strategy, agreeing to pause further production increases during the first quarter of 2026.

The organization cited a seasonal demand slowdown, though many analysts warn of a significant oversupply in global markets.

Heading into 2026, OPEC’s data does indicate a surplus, though on a more moderate scale than other forecasters. The alliance would need to produce 42.6 million barrels a day during the first quarter to balance global demand, less than the 43 million it pumped in October.

But, the International Energy Agency (IEA) leaned in hard in the demand side, stating that global demand for oil and gas will keep rising for the next 25 years unless governments change course, according to the Irish Times. In its latest World Energy Outlook, the Paris-based IEA warns that on the world’s current trajectory, fossil fuel use will continue to climb with “no meaningful fall in CO2 emissions.”

The new Current Policies scenario reflects a shift in governments’ priorities toward energy security and affordability, a slowdown in electric vehicle growth, and a “declining” focus on climate action. “Climate change is declining – and declining rapidly – in the international energy policy agenda,” said IEA head Fatih Birol.

Until this year, the IEA had assumed fossil fuel demand would peak this decade — a position fiercely opposed by the oil and gas industry and the White House. The agency denied that U.S. pressure prompted the change, noting that it consulted all member governments.

In July, U.S. energy secretary Chris Wright called the IEA’s previous “peak oil” modelling “total nonsense,” adding that Washington might “reform the IEA or withdraw its support.” The U.S. provides 14 per cent of the agency’s budget.

The Irish Times writes that major producers such as the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and the UAE argue the world still needs oil and gas to meet rising power demand from artificial intelligence and improving living standards.

The Current Policies scenario assumes existing laws remain unchanged for 25 years. Oil demand grows from 100 million barrels a day in 2024 to 113 million by 2050, while EV sales plateau at about 40 per cent by 2035. The Stated Policies case — reflecting announced but not enacted measures — sees oil peaking at 102 million b/d by 2030, with half of all cars sold in 2035 being electric.

Both scenarios show strong gas demand and a peak in coal use this decade. Electricity demand rises roughly 40 per cent by 2035, or 50 per cent under a more ambitious Net Zero path, with 80 per cent of growth in solar-rich regions.

“For some people it is very optimistic, for some people it is very pessimistic,” Birol said. “We just put the scenarios on the table.”

Clean energy advocates note that renewables dominate future power generation in every case. “Nearly all new electricity demand – driven by manufacturing growth, AI, cooling needs, and the shift to electric cars – will be supplied by renewable energy,” said Bruce Douglas of the Global Renewables Alliance.

Finally, we thought it noteworthy that OPEC’s secretariat hailed this shift by its counterparts at the IEA, which before today had in recent years has predicted consumption will stop growing this decade

The IEA, has had a “rendezvous with reality,” OPEC said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 09:25

UK Balks At EU Demand Of Nearly $8BN To Join European Joint Defense Fund

Early this week the UK government rejected a request from the European Commission for up to €6.75 billion ($7.8 billion) to join the EU’s flagship defense program, which marks a significant setback for post-Brexit relations under Prime Minister Keir Starmer and seen as another blow to European unity in efforts to counter Russia.

The European Commission reportedly proposed that the UK contribute between €4 billion and €6.5 billion to take part in the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, and pay in an additional €150 million to €250 million in administrative fees. 

Via Associated Press

"We will only agree to deals that deliver value for the UK and its industry," the UK government said in a statement of ongoing, secretive discussions. "Nothing has been finalized, and we will not provide a running commentary on ongoing discussions."

British defense companies could gain access to the €150 billion SAFE program if an agreement is reached, which is seen as a vital part of the EU strengthening collective defense readiness. A few select non-EU countries including the UK and Canada, and even Turkey, are invited to participate.

Confirmation of Britain's stance, which sees the European Commission's proposed fees as far too high, also came in recent Financial Times reporting, which described:

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen dodged a meeting with the UK prime minister at COP30 in Brazil about Brussels’ demand that London pay billions of euros to secure improved ties.

Sir Keir Starmer sought the meeting to complain about EU demands that the UK pay up to €6.5bn to participate in a loans-for-weapons program and make separate contributions to the EU budget, according to two people briefed on the situation.

A UK official in follow-up said, "We weren’t trying to pin her down to talk about this specific issue. In the end they didn’t end up meeting. He hasn’t spoken to her for a while."

A mere six months there was a high-profile summit (in May) which was widely seen as a formal "reset" in EU-UK relations. One top EU diplomat was quoted in FT as saying, "Europe’s defense naturally includes the UK."

The EU is asking the UK to contribute €4–6 billion (plus a €150m admin fee) in return for letting British defense firms bid for up to 50% of a €150 billion EU rearmament fund.

Currently, the UK can only access 35%. France wants the cap kept at 50%.

Source: The Telegraph pic.twitter.com/QbHo9TZ5PY

— Clash Report (@clashreport) November 10, 2025

Bids for projects under the SAFE program are due by November 30, with intense discussions expected between the UK and EU sides to be ongoing until that point.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 09:05

Investors Flock Back To Natural Gas As Demand Soars

By Irina Slav of OilPrice

From indispensable bridge fuel to dirtier than coal, natural gas has gone through a few turbulent years recently, culminating in the EU’s risky legislation that could see it left out in the cold and dark, and investors’ newfound—or newly remembered—appetite for investments in gas.

In the final year of his term, President Biden imposed a moratorium on new LNG export capacity, based on a study by a researcher who claimed that LNG production resulted in more emissions than burning coal. This was perhaps meant to drive investors away from the commodity, like so many studies before it. But it didn’t. Global demand for natural gas has been growing quite healthily, despite the surge in alternative energy sources.

Earlier this year, Infrastructure Investor reported that investors, previously focused on things like wind and solar, were returning to natural gas, sensing which way the demand winds were blowing. The publication quoted sources from the financial services industry as reporting a change in sentiment among investors as the realization dawns that the world will not be moving away from hydrocarbons and into wind and solar but would rather be adding new sources of energy to the older ones.

More recently, Ninepoint Partners portfolio manager and frequent energy markets commentator for the media, Eric Nuttall, indicated this sentiment has only grown stronger. “We see very strong demand drivers and also challenges to meaningfully growing supply over the short term,” he told Bloomberg this week, noting that his company’s energy fund has 27% oil exposure but 60% exposure to gas.

The distribution of investments reflects a reality that those claiming natural gas was even dirtier than coal because it is made up mostly of methane have trouble swallowing. That reality is that natural gas burns more cleanly than coal, is relatively affordable, and abundant enough to secure baseload generation for what many say is the AI age where demand for electricity from Big Tech will soar.

It is no accident that Big Oil is reorienting itself more towards natural gas, while staying in the oil game, of course. Yet Big Oil majors have all signaled they have special plans for gas. Shell, for instance, said earlier this year it would make LNG a priority for the next ten years. CEO Wale Sawan said LNG would be the company’s “biggest contribution to the energy industry” in the period. BP is making plans for both oil and gas production growth, revising its peak oil demand projection by five years.

Exxon recently warned the European Union it would have to suspend sales of natural gas to the bloc unless it canceled a draft legislation that would require producers to track every molecule to make sure it was extracted and liquefied responsibly, taking into account emissions and making sure they are as low as possible. Exxon—and other LNG sellers—are in a good negotiating position: the EU has been breaking records in LNG imports since 2022, even as it tries to move away from the commodity. Germany this year saw the highest volumes of gas-fired generation since 2019.

Australia’s Woodside Energy recently said it expected its sales of crude oil and natural gas to rise by some 50% by 2032, driven by growing demand for energy, which the company sees at 6% annually over the next five years. TotalEnergies lifted the force majeure on a massive LNG project in Mozambique even though observers warn that the security situation in the area remains unstable. Natural gas, in short, is back, and everyone now loves it. All it took for this to happen was the threat of shortage as data centers started popping up everywhere, straining grids and exposing the shortcomings of what so many thought would replace natural gas in power generation: weather-dependent, variable wind and solar.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 08:05

China's DeepSeek Issues Rare Warning Of An Incoming AI-Fueled Jobpocalypse

At the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, DeepSeek senior researcher Chen Deli made a rare public appearance late last week, warning that artificial intelligence could wipe out most jobs within the next 10 to 20 years. For our readers, this warning sounds very familiar; we've been highlighting the same "jobpocalypse" scenario for years, including in our March 2023 report, "AI Will Lead to 300 Million Layoffs in the U.S. and Europe."

"This will shake society to its core," Deli told the audience at the state-backed industry conference last Friday.

He urged AI companies to act as "whistleblowers," warning the public about the massive labor disruptions ahead.

Deli described the current period as a "honeymoon phase", a brief window where AI enhances productivity without replacing too many workers, but cautioned that once it ends, mass job losses will begin to accelerate.

He added, "Tech companies should play the role of guardians of humanity, at the very least, protecting human safety, then helping to reshape societal order." 

DeepSeek's labor market warning comes amid worsening youth unemployment and a lackluster post-pandemic economic recovery in China. Official figures show youth unemployment peaked at 21.3% in mid-2023 before authorities halted publication of the data.

Founded in 2023, DeepSeek jolted the stock market earlier this year, especially AI US stocks, after unveiling a low-cost model that is at a fraction of the cost of ChatGPT's o1. 

In the U.S., the latest Challenger, Gray & Christmas jobs data showed that AI-related job losses have already begun. 

Here's a snippet from the report:

• In October alone, Cost-Cutting was the top reason employers cited for job reductions, responsible for 50,437 announced layoffs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the second-most cited factor, leading to 31,039 job cuts as companies continue to restructure and automate. AI has been cited for 48,414 job cuts this year.

In mid-October, UBS analyst Nana Antiedu cited Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin's remarks at the Aiken Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina, which revealed that AI's impact on the labor market is already underway.

Circling back to our March 2023 report outlining the incoming jobpocalypse...

What's critical in the U.S. is that Gen Z and millennials are not only financially strained but also stand to be hit hardest by the coming wave of AI-driven job losses. The Trump administration must recognize this and, to counter the disruption, focus on creating real opportunities and restoring affordability for these generations. If it fails, there's a growing risk that these cohorts will be sucked into socialist and Marxist movements within the Democratic Party, which promise voters "free stuff" while squandering the nation's inheritance toward collapse.

Affordability and opportunity, particularly for the youth, will be major political themes in the year ahead.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 07:45

Will The Growth Of Stablecoins Drain Bank Deposits?

Authored by Paul Kupiec via RealClearMarkets.com,

The outlook for crypto finance improved dramatically with the change of administrations and the passage of the GENIUS Act. From January through the end of the “crypto summer of 2025”, outstanding $US stablecoins increased by $80 billion, to a total $280 billion in circulation.

The recent surge in stablecoin issuance has caused some market experts to estimate that, by 2030, under base-case assumptions, the volume of outstanding $US stablecoins will reach $1.9 trillion.

Under more bullish assumptions, stablecoins in circulation could reach $4 trillion.

Some argue that the rapid growth of stablecoins portends a repeat of the disintermediation experience that began in the 1970s with the invention of money market mutual fund. The attractive yields offered by these mutual funds attracted billions of dollars of deposits from bank and thrift institutions which contributed to the failure of hundreds of depository institutions during the 1980s. 

For example, one Citigroup executive echoes the finding of an April 2025 US Treasury report that estimates that stablecoins have the potential to drain as much as $6.6 trillion in deposits from the banking system.

The drain could force banks to raise deposit and loan rates and curtail lending.

A more recent Citi Institute  report suggests that, by 2030, stablecoin growth could extract up to $1 trillion in domestic bank demand, savings and time deposits.

In my opinion, these forecasts fail to appreciate that the GENIUS Act gives banks the ability to directly compete with non-bank stablecoin issuers.

The Act explicitly allows subsidiaries of banks to issue their own payment stablecoins. Banks could supply a hefty portion of the forecasted increase in stablecoin demand without sacrificing their total deposit funding from customer balances in demand, savings, and time accounts.

A bank could issue a stablecoin through a subsidiary, and keep its entire stablecoin reserve balances in demand deposits at its parent bank.

The Act explicitly omits a bank’s subsidiary stablecoin reserve balances from bank regulatory capital requirements. In this hypothetical example, the strategy would satisfy stablecoin demand without any impact on the parent bank’s total deposit balances.

Press stories and bank lobbyist press releases link the higher yields offered by fintech firms on stablecoin balances with the potential for bank deposit flight.

This interpretation is misguided.

GENIUS Act stablecoins are explicitly prohibited from paying interest - regardless of whether the stablecoins are issued by a bank subsidiary or a non-bank authorized fintech.

Once stablecoins are issued, fintech crypto exchanges, wallets and other digital asset custodians accumulate stablecoin balances that can be loaned to fintech firms. The interest on stablecoin loans can be shared in part with the owners of the stablecoins held in custody. The development of a stablecoin banking industry can, in theory, provide the same yield to the owners of bank-subsidiary issued stablecoin deposits as it pays on deposits of non-bank affiliated stablecoins. 

While “stablecoin banks” are at present unregulated, as long as the stablecoin bank regulations that are ultimately imposed do not distinguish between bank-subsidiary issued stablecoins and non-bank affiliated stablecoins, there is no reason to anticipate that there will be a yield differential based on whether the issuer of the stablecoins on deposit is bank-affiliated.

The stablecoin industry may currently be dominated by non-bank fintech firms, but it is hard to imagine that stablecoins issued by bank affiliated subsidiaries—especially subsidiaries of globally systemically important banks—would not be highly competitive in the US dollar stablecoin ecosystem. The claim that stablecoins growth poses an existential threat for the supply of banking system deposits presumes that banks, through subsidiaries, will not be competitive stablecoin issuers.

Unless bank regulators inject roadblocks that prevent banks from competing as stablecoin issuers, stablecoin growth need not create deposit funding problems for banks willing to compete in the internet-based payments market.   

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 06:30

Trump Admin Expands Oil & Gas Drilling In Gulf Of America, Eyes Alaska Next

The Department of the Interior announced on Nov. 7 two major steps to expand offshore oil and gas leasing under President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, unveiling plans for the first lease sale in the Gulf of America and another proposed auction in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

The measures are the first in a schedule of 30 offshore sales in the Gulf of America and six in Alaska, part of what the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) described as the Trump administration’s effort to “unleash American energy dominance” and cement the United States’ position as a global energy powerhouse.

“President Trump’s signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act marked the beginning of a new chapter for oil and gas development in the Gulf of America and Alaska’s Cook Inlet,” acting BOEM Director Matt Giacona said in the statement.

“BOEM is now moving forward with a predictable, congressionally mandated leasing schedule that will support offshore oil and gas development for decades to come.”

As Tom Ozimek reports for The Epoch Times, the first sale - officially titled Big Beautiful Gulf 1 - will open roughly 80 million acres across the Gulf of America for leasing. The area spans approximately 160 million acres, containing an estimated 29.6 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 54.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Interior Department said the sale advances the president’s goal of boosting domestic energy output and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers, while fulfilling the directives outlined in Trump’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy.”

To attract participation, BOEM set a 12.5 percent royalty rate—the lowest permitted by statute—for both shallow- and deep-water leases. Certain environmentally sensitive or legally restricted zones, including the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary and blocks beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, will remain off-limits.

Alongside the Gulf of America sale, BOEM released a proposed notice of sale for Big Beautiful Cook Inlet 1, which would make about 1 million acres available for leasing in Alaska’s Cook Inlet. The sale is the first of six required by the One Big Beautiful Bill, scheduled annually from 2026 to 2028 and again from 2030 to 2032.

The proposed sale has similar terms to those of the Gulf sale, including the 12.5 percent royalty rate.

The offshore leases will help support high-paying jobs, coastal infrastructure, and state-level revenue sharing while bolstering federal finances, according to BOEM.

Proceeds from lease sales, rental fees, and royalties flow primarily into the Treasury’s General Fund, helping fund government operations, and portions go to Gulf Coast states for restoration and hurricane protection.

Oil Permits Continue Through Shutdown

The twin announcements come as the administration continues to prioritize conventional energy development during the ongoing federal government shutdown, which started on Oct. 1. According to contingency plans, the Interior Department will keep processing oil and gas permits—deemed essential to national energy security—while halting nearly all renewable energy activities, which Trump has criticized as costly and inefficient.

During his first term, Trump kept oil and gas permitting active throughout the 34-day government shutdown in 2018–2019.

President Barack Obama’s administration halted drilling permits and canceled at least one lease sale during the 2013 shutdown.

Some environmental groups have criticized the current administration’s decision to prioritize oil and gas permitting during the shutdown, saying it reflects a bias toward fossil fuel interests.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Chris Wright blamed Democrats for refusing to back the Republican stopgap spending measure to keep the government open, writing on social media that his department remains committed to “delivering affordable, reliable and secure energy to the American people.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 05:45

Why We Should Welcome Tommy Robinson's Acquittal

Authored by Tony Dawson via TheCritic.co.uk,

Tommy Robinson (also known as Stephen Lennon) was last week acquitted of an offence contrary to schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Robinson had been accused of breaching the criminal law after he failed to provide the PIN access code to his mobile.

He had been stopped by the police on 28 July 2024 having approached the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone.

The decision by District Judge Sam Goozée is a welcome push back against a draconian and easily abused power.

To explain, Schedule 7, paragraph 2(1) provides that:

An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

Section 40(1)(b) details that a terrorist is a person “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. The power may be exercised at a port or border area where a person is entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

Paragraph 18  of Schedule 7 then goes on to create an offence of contravening an obligation under the Schedule and gives a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment.

What makes the power unusual is that an officer is not required to have reasonable suspicion before questioning a suspect, as would normally be the case. Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 conversely, for instance, requires that an officer must have “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that an offence has been committed and may arrest a person whom he suspects being guilty of it. The lack of a reasonable suspicion requirement in Schedule 7 gives police officers immensely broad powers with a great potential for abuse.

Further, a person who has been stopped is not entitled to the right to silence. Beghal v DPP  [2015] UKSC 49 determined that privilege would not apply to the process as its ultimate purpose was not to gather information prior to charge. If evidence was to be used, it might be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Of course, in practice, evidence may be used and a judge may decide against excluding it. As Lord Kerr observed in a dissenting judgment:

There is, currently, no guarantee that someone who gives a self-incriminating answer in the course of a Schedule 7 inquiry will not be confronted by those answers in a subsequent criminal trial. He may succeed in having evidence of those answers excluded but he cannot ensure that he will not be prosecuted on foot of them. I consider therefore that the requirement in Schedule 7 that a person questioned under its provisions must answer on pain of prosecution for failing to do so is in breach of that person’s common law privilege against self-incrimination.

Some recent cases give good examples of the use to which the police put their powers. @AkkadSecretary, as known on X, posted a video on YouTube describing a stop when he returned from the United States on 28 January 2025. He was detained, given access to a lawyer before his interview, but not during it, and was forced to reveal the passwords to his devices so that the police could access them. He was asked about his opinions on Russia and the war on Ukraine. He was further asked about what he thought about the UK and its policies and the West in general. The police kept his devices, so that he was forced to buy a new train ticket, as he only had his previous ticket on his phone. In his video, he cited further instances where stops were made, including in the cases of Paul Golding and Lauren Southern.

There have, however, been instances where the courts have constrained the powers. In R (on the application of Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2016] EWCA Civ 6, the Court of Appeal found that the use of the power when stopping and questioning David Miranda, the since deceased husband of Glenn Greenwald, had been contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) since Miranda was holding material which was designed to assist his husband’s journalism. The Court of Appeal made its determination since there were no adequate safeguards against the arbitrary use of the Schedule 7 powers. The Code of Practice on the use of Schedule 7 was since amended to take journalism into account.

Beghal v United Kingdom (app no 4755/16) in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) also showed a stronger position against schedule 7. The applicant, Sylvie Beghal, was a French national resident in the UK. She was held and questioned for 9 hours at East Midlands airport after she returned from visiting her husband in France, who was serving a prison sentence on a terrorism offence. The ECtHR found that the combination of the long period under which a person could be detained, the lack of safeguards, the lack of presence of a lawyer, lack of reasonable suspicion and the ability to compel answers to questions together meant that there was a violation of Article 8 (private life) of the ECHR. In practice, since the 9 hour term of detention had been reduced, the UK could argue that there was further control, so Beghal has not had a significant impact on the use of schedule 7. The judgment did not find that lack of reasonable suspicion or self-incrimination per se marked breaches of the Convention.

In Cifci v CPS [2022] EWHC 1676 (Admin) established that a person could not be convicted of an offence under schedule 7 unless the decision to stop was lawful and that a stop would be unlawful if it constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The High Court said that two questions should be asked:

(i) was the purpose of the stop for the statutory purpose set out in para 2(1) of Sch.7? and (ii) did the appellant’s protected characteristics have a significant influence on the decision to stop? These are separate questions and each must be asked.

In Cifci, however, the appellant had not been subjected to unlawful discrimination and the stop was therefore lawful.

The police have elsewhere conceded that their use of powers were unlawful. In 2024, a French activist was stopped under the powers and asked whether he had taken part in anti-government protests and whether he backed President Macron. He was awarded substantial damages after he brought a claim for misfeasance in public office and false imprisonment.

It is against this background that Tommy Robinson was acquitted. The law has developed safeguards, albeit limited ones, to prevent searches from being arbitrary. As controversial as Robinson is, due to his connection with the now disbanded English Defence League, his previous convictions and his strong criticism of Islam, schedule 7 is designed for a specific purpose and must be exercised within that purpose in a non-discriminatory way.  

District Judge Sam Goozée described the events surrounding the stop and detention. PC Thorogood Robinson recognised Robinson as Robinson approached the police booth driving alone in a Bentley. The selection decision was made after 34 seconds. The officers described Robinson’s behaviour as being suspicious, that he was stopped because he was not the registered driver of the vehicle and that he was travelling a long distance to Benidorm on short notice. There were unexplained delays when Robinson was stopped. The total delay before detention appeared to be 40 minutes.

District Judge Sam Goozée found that the stop itself did not fulfil the statutory purpose under the Terrorism Act. The officers involved had vague recollections of the events leading to Robinson’s stop and of the questions asked. Robinson had been stopped primarily because of who he was, rather than under selection criteria.

Moreover, the stop had also related to Robinson’s beliefs, as protected under the Equality Act. The officers might have attempted to justify their actions by asking questions linked to political activities and the possibility of links terrorism. Yet, the lack of recollection meant that the stop was discriminatory.

The authorities will doubtlessly argue that schedule 7 provides a useful means through which the police can gather evidence on suspicious persons potentially linked with terrorist activity and that there should be some flexibility in how it is applied; and, indeed, Cifci, on the Equality Act, has the potential to cause numerous problems if police become too restrained in making stops based on the political or religious beliefs of suspicious persons at borders. The use of the power, though, has most certainly been abused. Figures have been stopped merely for fishing expeditions based on views that diverge from the centre. As such, it will be a welcome development if the police are more cautious in exercising their powers in the future.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 03:30

Turkish Prosecutors Demand '2,000-Year' Prison Term For Jailed Istanbul Mayor

Via The Cradle

A Turkish prosecutor has demanded more than 2,000 years in prison for Istanbul’s jailed mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, accusing him of leading a vast corruption network that allegedly defrauded the state of billions of liras, according to an indictment unveiled on Tuesday.

Istanbul Chief Prosecutor Akin Gurlek said the nearly 4,000-page document names 402 suspects, including Imamoglu, and charges them with forming a criminal organization, bribery, fraud, money laundering, and bid-rigging. 

Ekrem Imamoglu, via Bursa Press

He said the alleged network caused 160 billion Turkish liras (around $3.8 billion) in losses to the state over 10 years.

The indictment, which includes findings by the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) and what Gurlek described as "digital and video evidence," portrays Imamoglu as the founder and head of the organization. It also accuses several business figures of being coerced into paying bribes through a secret municipal fund.

Turkish media reported that Imamoglu faces 142 separate charges and could serve up to 2,352 years in prison if convicted. 

The mayor, detained since March, has rejected all accusations and denounced them as politically driven. His arrest sparked the largest demonstrations in Turkiye in over a decade.

Imamoglu previously received a separate prison term in July for allegedly insulting and threatening the city’s chief prosecutor – a verdict he is appealing. 

Additional charges against him include espionage, document forgery, and defamation of public officials. He is also accused of transferring residents’ personal data to obtain foreign campaign funding, which Imamoglu has dismissed as "nonsense."

The government has denied accusations by Imamoglu and his Republican People’s Party (CHP) that the proceedings are politically motivated, insisting that Turkiye’s courts are independent.

The Istanbul municipality and Imamoglu’s lawyers have not commented on the latest indictment, with the trial date to be set once the court accepts the case.

The sweeping indictment against Imamoglu aligns with what Turkish academic and writer Fatih Yasli describes as a broader campaign by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government to dismantle the country’s democratic framework. 

Yasli argues that Ankara has turned the judiciary into a mechanism of "de-electoralization," or criminalizing opposition forces while extending selective overtures to the Kurdish movement. 

Within this context, the case against the Istanbul mayor, the most prominent figure in the Republican People’s Party (CHP), is seen as part of a wider effort to fracture the opposition, reclaim CHP-led municipalities, and entrench Erdogan’s power through judicial and administrative control rather than through elections.

Tyler Durden Wed, 11/12/2025 - 02:45