Individual Economists

Reporters Leave Pentagon En Masse After All But One Outlet Rejects New Rules

Zero Hedge -

Reporters Leave Pentagon En Masse After All But One Outlet Rejects New Rules

Wednesday evening saw reporters from nearly every major network and mainstream news outlet hand in their press badges and exit the Pentagon, following their refusal to sign a new policy issued by War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

"Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America," the Pentagon Press Association announced in a statement.

"The Pentagon Press Association's members are still committed to reporting on the U.S. military," it added. "But make no mistake, today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all."

Those who did not sign the new policy which vows to not seek or obtain classified, sensitive, or leaked material said the document would expose journalists to potential prosecution.

Axios, which did not sign, also listed the following non-signers who have been effectively booted from the Pentagon premises: Fox News, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, AP, the Washington Post and the New York Times, and others. However, One America News (OAN) was a significant network that did sign it.

According to the NY Times, the request for a Pentagon press badge went from signing one page of rules/policy to a whopping 21-pages detailing what reporters can and can't do: 

The new rules codify sharp limitations on access and raise the prospect of punishment — including revocation of credentials — for simply requesting information on matters of public interest. Lawyers representing national news organizations have been negotiating for weeks with Pentagon officials over the strictures.

Since being introduced last month, there's been a full-on, very public revolt against the policy. Ironically, it was Hegseth himself who earlier in the Trump administration had been thrust into the center of controversy due to the embarrassing Yemen group chat Signal episode.

Outlets had been told to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5 pm or surrender their press credentials within 24 hours. So by close of Wednesday, large groups of journalists were seen walking from the Pentagon to the parking lot with all of their things.

Via X

Hegseth responded on social media to this MSM media exit with a dismissive wave emoji directed at the outlets’ statements. He subsequently posted a list titled “Press Credentialing FOR DUMMIES,” outlining new restrictions such as visible badge requirements and a prohibition on "soliciting criminal acts."

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 23:00

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners' Homes

Zero Hedge -

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners' Homes

By Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America,

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment's core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called "welfare check." They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him. 

Case survived, but his rights did not.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police's warrantless entry. Apparently, the government's "reasonable suspicion" that Treavor Case might need "help" was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

And it was not as if obtaining a warrant would have been difficult. A recent Harvard Law Review study found that 93 percent of warrants are approved on first submission, often in less than three minutes. With modern technology, police can draft and submit warrant requests directly from their phones. The officers in Montana had nearly an hour to seek judicial approval. They chose not to.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man's home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as "community caretakers." The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment's protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended "caretaking" exceptions.

The facts in Montana look nothing like an emergency. Body camera transcripts reveal that officers themselves doubted that Case required immediate aid. One noted that "chances are pretty slim" he needed urgent medical attention. They discussed staging medical personnel outside but decided against it. After forty minutes of hesitation, they declared the situation an "emergency" and broke in anyway.

In any other context, an armed entry without a warrant would be understood as unlawful. The Constitution does not stop at the property line of a gun owner. If a homeowner responds defensively to armed intruders, the law recognizes the basic right of self-defense. What transforms that same scenario into a police action is supposed to be the warrant requirement. Strip that away, and the police have no more right to enter than anyone else.

Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, however, has sided with Montana. 

In an amicus brief, DOJ argued that when police are "providing aid" rather than investigating a crime, they should not need probable cause or a warrant. That claim, if accepted, creates a dangerous loophole: police may simply reframe their role to avoid constitutional limits.

The risks are obvious. A neighbor calls for a welfare check. Officers arrive, say they are caretakers, and enter without a warrant. Inside, they confront a homeowner startled by strangers in his house. The encounter escalates, and the mere presence of a firearm becomes justification for force. What began as a welfare check ends as a shooting.

The Framers wrote the Fourth Amendment to prevent precisely this kind of abuse. 

Judicial oversight was designed to ensure that government agents could not force their way into private homes unless a neutral magistrate agreed the evidence justified it. By lowering the bar from probable cause to suspicion, the Montana court has eroded that safeguard.

Caniglia was unanimous and recent. For Pam Bondi's DOJ to back Montana in this case is not simply inconsistent with precedent; it also undermines the Fourth Amendment principle that the home is a place of security. If the Supreme Court accepts this reasoning, the Fourth Amendment will be reduced to a formality.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 22:35

Transportation Sec. Duffy Says Leftist Gov. Moore Is 'Poor Steward' Of Collapsed Key Bridge Rebuild Funds

Zero Hedge -

Transportation Sec. Duffy Says Leftist Gov. Moore Is 'Poor Steward' Of Collapsed Key Bridge Rebuild Funds

Leftist Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who appears to be friends with the "dark-money NGO King" - the Soros family, specifically Alex Soros...

... and was recently caught "half-naked" on George Clooney's luxury motor yacht in Italy. 

Who has also seen collapsing poll numbers in a deep-blue state overtaken by radical leftists in Annapolis, who care more about criminal illegal aliens, higher taxes, an exploding deficit fueled by out-of-control spending, toxic social and criminal justice reforms, the promotion of the climate crisis hoax, and dark-money-funded NGOs.

Everyone knows Democrats aren't competent managers but rather left-wing activists who squander the nation's wealth created by those who actually build systems, whether at the state, local, or federal level. This understanding comes as Maryland's fiscal deficit worsens, raising alarm bells within the Trump administration about whether Democrats in the state, specifically Moore, can properly manage the rebuild of the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge. 

18 months later... 

Fox Baltimore reports that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned Gov. Moore that Maryland's $2 billion rebuild project of the bridge, which relies heavily on federal taxpayer money, is coming under intense scrutiny because the project's costs are "ballooning," schedules are slipping, and certain hiring practices may violate federal law. 

"It's my job to ensure the American people's tax dollars are spent properly and major projects are completed on time and on budget," Duffy wrote in a recent letter to Moore. "Ballooning project costs are already threatening to delay this critical project."

Moore has not yet replied to Duffy's letter and has avoided interviews despite repeated media requests, according to the local media outlet. 

In an exclusive interview with Fox Baltimore on Tuesday at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport, Duffy doubled down on his concerns that Moore and Maryland officials are not competent "stewards with the money"... 

"The federal government is going to pay for the project, but the governor is going to manage it. And when someone else pays, at a wedding, you get the finest alcohol, you'll get the finest steak if someone else is buying. We need to make sure we're looking out for the federal taxpayer and also rebuild this bridge.

"I don't think he has been a good steward with the money, but also, we have sent a letter to all of our partners saying they have to follow the law." 

Duffy's criticism of Moore and radical leftists in Maryland didn't stop at their fiscal management. He warned new concerns about the state's approach to diversity hiring, particularly regarding race- and sex-based contractor selection. 

"A long time ago, we got rid of contracting based on race and sex," Duffy said, adding, "That can drive the cost up and the time frame up for completion."

Eighteen months later, and still no new bridge (China would've had this built in six months). The project exemplifies the incompetence of Democrats who masquerade as competent managers but are actually left-wing activists. Their intent isn't to build but to squander the nation's inheritance through socialist and Marxist policies.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 22:10

Extending The ACA Subsidies?

Zero Hedge -

Extending The ACA Subsidies?

Authored by Bill King via RealClearPolitics,

Over the last week, the decision on whether to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies has increasingly become the defining issue of the shutdown.  It is an issue that is fracturing the Republican Party and threatening to derail their midterm election prospects.

Unpacking the numbers

From the outset, the Affordable Care Act subsidized the purchase of health insurance by some lower-income Americans on the health insurance exchanges. The subsidy was based on a sliding scale that set a maximum a person would pay as a percentage of their income. The ceiling for the subsidy was originally 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Today, that is about $60,000 for an individual, a little over $80,000 for a couple, and $124,000 for a family of four.  Anyone who exceeded that ceiling got no subsidy when purchasing their insurance.

For those below the ceiling, the government would pick up the cost of the insurance that was above a percentage of the person’s income. That ranged from just over 2% to almost 10%. According to CMS Marketplace data, the subsidy typically covered 75-85% of the premiums for this group. Before the expansion, nearly 9 million Americans received the subsidy, and they accounted for over three-quarters of all Marketplace enrollment. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the subsidy was costing the federal government about $50 billion annually.

During the pandemic, Congress expanded the eligibility criteria for the subsidy by eliminating the income limits. But the expansion was only temporary, scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Since the expansion was adopted during the pandemic and was set to expire automatically, a narrative emerged that the expansion was a pandemic response that would no longer be necessary after the pandemic ended. But the truth is that the expansion had nothing to do with the pandemic. The pandemic was just a pretext to expand coverage, something Democrats had long sought to do. The automatic termination was included to reduce the projected effect on the deficit. This allowed Democrats to use the reconciliation process to avoid a Republican filibuster.

The expansion eliminated the 400% of FPL limit. However, the benefit was capped by requiring that individuals must pay 8.5% of their income toward the premium before they could receive any subsidy. Furthermore, the premium is based on a particular level of coverage that currently costs about $10,000 per year for a single adult.

The net effect of the expanded subsidy rules is to reduce the subsidy as a person’s income increases gradually. For most people, the subsidy goes to zero at an income of about $120,000 for an individual and about $240,000 for a couple. This opened the subsidy to millions of Americans who did not previously qualify. As a result, the number of Americans participating in the Marketplace leaped from 11 million to 21 million, and those receiving some subsidy went from about 8.8 million to 13.3 million. The average monthly subsidy went from $525 to just over $600. The expansion benefits have been costing about $40 billion per year. This is consistent with the CBO’s estimate late last year of the cost to extend the enhanced subsidy. That would add about 2% to the projected federal deficit.

Unpacking the politics

The Democrats adopted the expansion on a straight party vote. Not a single Republican voted for the original extension. However, it turns out that Americans across the political spectrum came to strongly support the expansion of the subsidies.

A poll by the KFF (fka the Kaiser Family Foundation) found that 77% of Americans want Congress to extend the subsidies. The extension enjoys remarkable support across the political spectrum. Even self-identified MAGA Republicans favor the extension 56-43.

Earlier this year, KFF conducted a detailed analysis of the effect of the expiring subsidies by congressional district. Those most impacted are skewed toward districts currently held by Republicans. In all but one district with an incumbent Republican, voters over 60 who are currently receiving the subsidy would see an increase in their premium of over 100%. These individuals make up 7% of the population of those districts. Since they are over 60, most are likely registered voters and typically vote Republican.

We are currently entering the ACA reenrollment period, and many Americans are learning for the first time how much their premiums may go up. As a result, Republican members of Congress are hearing from their constituents. It is, therefore, not surprising that a growing number of Republican members are breaking with the leadership on extending the subsidies. Most notable has been MAGA loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene.

A compromise on subsidies may be the off-ramp to end the shutdown. If the Senate were to pass a clean bill with an extension of the subsidies, it is hard to imagine the House would not do the same.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 21:45

Pages